19980429_2.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
April 29, 1998 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance were Commissioners Dennis Hansen, Ralph Nelson and Marsha H. Smith and staff members Don Howell, Scott Woodbury, Brad Purdy, Weldon Stutzman, Carolee Hall, Keith Hessing, Wayne Hart, Rick Sterling, Ron Law, Bev Barker, Randy Lobb, Lynn Anderson and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were: Bart Kline, Quentin Nesbitt and Theresa Drake of Idaho Power Company; Mary Hobson and John Souba of U S West; Michael Creamer, Attorney at Law,  Bruce Fulsom of Washington Water Power Company; Joe Miller, Attorney at Law and Eileen Benner of AT&T.
Commission President Dennis Hansen called the decision meeting to order.
Matters from the Published April 29, 1998 Decision Meeting Agenda were considered and recorded as follows.
1. Approval of Minutes from Previous Meeting - Minutes of the April 21, 1998 Decision Meeting had not circulated to all commissioners so they were held at this time.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items 2 and 3 listed on the Consent Agenda portion of the Agenda were considered at this time.
Commissioner Hansen asked if there was any discussion on these items.
Commissioner Nelson moved approval of the Consent Agenda. Motion carried unanimously.
MATTERS IN PROGRESS
4. Weldon Stutzman’s April 17, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. USW-T-97-14 (U S West) Approval of Process for U S West Section 271 Filing (Held from 04-21-98 Decision Meeting).
Weldon reviewed the decision memo. Commission has now received a response from Electric Lightwave. Staff believes that the stipulation is proper for what it accomplishes and recommends that it be approved and staff can begin preparation for working on this matter.
Commissioner Hansen called for questions or discussion.
Commissioner Nelson said he appreciated all the help the commission has gotten from the parties in this matter. Appreciates the work of U S West. After review of the stipulation is not sure of the timeframes set out. Has looked at it from stipulation doing everything in the way of requiring everything needed to be filed. While he hasn’t had a chance to write down everything that should be included in a filing, would note  that U S West has the burden of proof for making a complete enough filing so the Commission can make a timely decision. Without enough information in the initial filing there is no way any kind of evidentiary proceeding can bring that out in a 90-day timeframe when a hearing is scheduled 45/50 days after the material is originally filed. There is legally no time for discovery.   The objections to that process are valid but it is the way of the world that we are in the time crunch that we are. It wasn’t the Commission’s decision to have those time lines in place. Was in favor of the stipulation. If we decide to approve it, should do it by order and perhaps at that time would share whatever thoughts we have as to what the filing should include.
Commissioner Hansen commented he agreed with a lot of what Commissioner Nelson has mentioned. To him this is an agreement that staff and U S West have worked out in order for the staff to be ready for a 271 filing. Think that is important,  but didn’t  really see any reason for us as a Commission to approve or disapprove it. It is important that the staff get the information they need to proceed on with the filing;  and guess he agrees with Commissioner Nelson that the burden of proof will be on U S West,  and yet think some of the concerns of some of the other parties that it be a complete filing and data be submitted at that time, are valid. As a Commission, take that for granted. Think the parties would have to produce whatever the Commission would require or need at that time to make a decision. Right now was not too sure if he wanted to rule on the matter.
Commissioner Smith said she didn’t see a need to approve or reject what the staff and U S West have put together. Have had several petitions about what should be filed and when,  and the Commission said we thought it was too soon. So now we think since the filing is more imminent we should nail things down. The matter should be processed as expeditiously and economically as possible given what we know and the time constraint; so maybe it would be a good idea  that when U S West makes its filing that everyone has agreed to a schedule. Think we will have the same parties as other states and maybe when we get to  ours everyone will have seen the discovery questions and will know how long it takes. Right now still don’t see a need to adopt or reject this. If it works for them or if something would work better, get together and see what works. Don’t see any need for us to argue over dates, etc. Everything that could be done ahead of time could be done and in place and we have that stipulated. Her message for those concerned was:  you have done this before so let’s get it done as quickly as we can.  
Commissioner Nelson said he thought it might be a good idea if staff looked at  OSS practices of U S West because it is likely that we might need an independent view of what that interconnection is doing.
Commissioner Hansen stated that the Commission has had a good discussion on this matter and now asks what the pleasure of the Commission would be.
Commissioner Smith made a motion to table it.
Commissioner Hansen asked if there was discussion on the motion? Hearing none, vote was taken; two to one. Commissioner Nelson dissented.
5. Weldon Stutzman’s April 27, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Investigation of Billing Practices of MCI Telecommunications, Inc.
Weldon reviewed the decision memo. Staff has met with MCI counsel to get additional information and it is possible that some concerns can be resolved in short order. Staff is still asking for an investigation. In any event will keep working with MCI to obtain answers.
Commissioner Smith said here is another item that should be held for awhile. If staff is still checking it out,  it is not clear to her if another proceeding should be established. Maybe they should spend some more time doing some groundwork before an official investigation is opened.
Commissioner Nelson said he would agree with that,  for a limited period of time. If staff and company are  not able to come to some fairly reasonable resolution soon, it should be brought  back to the Commissioners.
Commissioner Hansen asked if a time certain should be set?
Commissioner Nelson said he would hate to set a time certain,  but would say if you haven’t gotten anywhere in a month, come back to decision meeting.
Commissioner Hansen then made a motion to hold the item and have staff and company work towards a resolution of the matter.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. Brad Purdy’s April 28, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-98-4; Authority for Idaho Power to Discontinue its Irrigation Conservation Program.
Brad reviewed the decision memo. Company proposes a May 1 effective date to terminate the program. As staff notes, Idaho Power has been informing irrigators since last summer that this program was going to be terminated. Company has not been taking applications. Staff believes the company did not have the authority to terminate without Commission approval. Staff believes that the Commission should issue an order directing Idaho Power to leave this program in effect; also to continue taking applications until the Commission hears all interested persons in this case, possibly through modified procedure. Irrigators are out in the fields now. It is a difficult time for them and it is an opportune time for them to participate in the program.
Commissioner Hansen asked if there were questions.
Commissioner Nelson clarified that all the Commission was being asked for now is to suspend the May 1 date?
Brad responded - and proceed with modified, putting it out for comment.
Bart Kline on behalf of Idaho Power spoke to the filing at this time. Said there is no question the staff memo is correct. Company has taken a different approach with its customers. As the Commissioners probably recall with other conservation programs, company has filed to discontinue and customers have come in and said we need to be grandfathered. In this particular case,  company decided to take a more proactive role with customers. Went out to them. It was done to advise the customers. Introduced Quentin Nesbitt from Idaho Power, in charge of the project. Mr. Kline asked Mr. Nesbitt to describe what the company has done.
Mr. Nesbitt said they actually started last winter. Idaho Power usually participates in ag shows, workshops, etc. Announced at workshops that the company was ending these programs and they had until spring to get applications in;  but would be ending it sometime soon this year. Have been putting out that message ever since then and  stopped taking new participants in the spring time frame. Were telling people to be done by July 1 and you will be in the program and we will go ahead and pay your incentive. Are still finishing up some of the programs that have been in the pipeline since last spring. It is difficult with these customers. Explained the time frame. Company didn’t do new audits last summer for participation in this program. If company got calls on it , they were told that the programs were being discontinued.
Commissioner Hansen said he was disappointed in how the company has handled this. His question is why would the company stop taking applications before they had received approval of this request? Did you just think it was 100% assured? You could have customers out there and Commission hasn’t acted on it and they would think it has been disbanded.
Bart Kline responded that he understands the concerns of the Commission. This particular program is unique among the conservation programs the company has participated in and the ones the Commission has let the company discontinue. There are such long lead times that these things can extend on for years. Thought we had learned something in other programs. Hopefully we learned something as part of this. That is why we did it the way we did.
Commissioner Hansen said it looked like with their medium systems there were 13 customers. With the new program there are 10 potential customers and one in the large program. To him that was kind of an indicator that there is a lot of interest in it. Lots of time when you discontinue its lack of interest. Asked Mr. Kline if he would say there is lots of interest in the program out there?
Bart replied - if we do as the staff has suggested and put a stay in place, can assure the Commission that it will be much more popular, fast. You can anticipate a large influx of people wanting to participate.  
Commissioner Hansen asked why the program was instituted in the first place?
Bart  replied he thought there was a policy from this Commission and utilities in Idaho in the late 80s that we were going to defer costs of new programs. In the last couple of years we have come to the conclusion that this isn’t always the best way.
Commissioner Nelson said he would make a motion to put the matter out for comment.
Commissioner Smith said she had just a couple of comments before voting on the motion. Said she was more than a little disappointed. Seemed to her that if the company wanted a one year phase-out of the program, it could have filed with the Commission for that .  You could have weeded out the less meritorious applications if there was a problem of last minute rush. Company didn’t have to ignore a Commission-authorized program and tell customers it was discontinued before we said it was discontinued. Just because the rules say 30 days for a filing, don’t have to wait till 30th day to file. Company could have filed a year ago for a phase out of this program. Said she has to say she is upset that more than a year ago the irrigators are told it was going to be phased out and the Commission doesn’t hear until March 28.  
Commissioner Nelson then made a motion to approve staff recommendation to suspend the May 1 termination date and to issue a notice of modified procedure.
Motion carried unanimously.
7. Scott Woodbury’s April 27, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. WWP-E-98-3 MOPS II Pilot--Proposed Tariff Revisions.
Scott reviewed the decision memo.  
Commissioner Hansen commented that he didn’t agree with Order 27351,  so he was not in a position to extend changes in that order.
Commissioner Smith made a motion approving the changes to MOPS II pilot with acceptance of the company’s offer to cap expenses at the level already authorized by the Commission.
Vote taken: approved 2 to 1; Commissioners Smith and Nelson voted yes; Commissioner Hansen voted no.
8. Scott Woodbury’s April 27, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. HVW-W-98-1 Happy Valley Water System - Request for Transfer of Certificate.
Scott reviewed the decision memo. Kootenai Electric was the only party to file comments. Commission staff was the only party to appear at the show cause hearing.
Commissioner Nelson made a motion to cancel the certificate of Coyote Coeur d’Alene and to issue a new certificate to the Dunnicks. Asked Scott what options there were for Kootenai Electric?
Commissioner Smith said she would tell Mr. Woodbury to tell Kootenai Electric we are not a collection agency.
Motion was approved unanimously.
Meeting adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 6th day of June, 1998.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary