19980601_2.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
JUNE 1, 1998 - 1:30 P.M.
In attendance were Commissioners Dennis S. Hansen, Ralph Nelson and Marsha H. Smith and staff members Carolee Hall, Scott Woodbury, Cheri Copsey, Don Howell, Weldon Stutzman, Keith Hessing, Bev Barker, Randy Lobb, David Scott, George Fink, Stephanie Miller, Wayne Hart, Joe Cusick, Birdelle Brown, Tonya Clark, Terri Carlock  and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were Joe Miller, Attorney at Law; Bob Dunbar; William C. Linam of United Water and Peter Richardson, Attorney at Law. Also in attendance were representatives of Washington Water Power Company, including Brian Hirschkorn.
Items from the June 1, 1998 Agenda were discussed and acted upon as follows.
Commission President Dennis Hansen called the meeting to order.
First item on the agenda was:
1. Minutes of May 18 and May 26, 1998 Decision Meetings. (Minutes have previously been reviewed by Commissioners and corrections made).
Commission President Dennis Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes; motion was seconded, carried unanimously.
Next order of business was the Consent Agenda - Item Nos. 2 thru 9.
Commissioner Hansen called for discussion or comments on the items.
Commissioner Smith complimented Mr. Dunbar for research on the TRS contract  matter and agreed it was a good idea to stay with Hamilton. With that, made a motion to approve all the items on the consent agenda.
Vote taken on the motion: motion carried unanimously.
MATTERS IN PROGRESS were then considered.
10. Scott Woodbury’s May 22, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. WWP-E-98-5 Request for Waiver of Schedule 51 Developer Deposit/Credit Requirement (Held from May 26, 1998 Decision Meeting) and Stephanie Miller’s May 28, 1998 Supplemental Decision Memorandum re: this matter.
ScottWoodbury explained that the matter was held over to this meeting and he  briefly reviewed the particulars set out in the decision memorandum.  A number of comments have been filed. Company,  after reading staff comments elected to file a reply. They feel there is enough latitude in its tariff with respect to determination of an appropriate credit instrument. The Company was of a mind that if the Commission agreed with staff,  they would withdraw their application. Stephanie Miller’s May 28, 1998 Decision Memorandum reviewed happenings since the last decision meeting. Staff feels Kootenai’s filing can be handled by Consumer Section or be  addressed on the basis of the affidavits. Don’t think it pertains to the company’s filing in this case with respect to the developer deposit requirement. Commission can consider this in a decision tree. If Commission agrees with staff and as clarified by the Company’s comments in Stephanie Miller’s subsequent decision memo, then the first decision point has been reached and the company requests that the application be withdrawn. Essentially Company feels the proposal is back before the Commission. Staff feels that granting a waiver would be inappropriate.
Commissioner Hansen asked if the Company wanted to make any comments?
Brian Hirschkorn of WWP was in attendance and he indicated he did not have any comments to make but that he was in attendance to respond to any questions the Commissioners may have.
Peter Richardson representing Kootenai Electric said he was also available to answer questions the Commissioners may have.
Commissioner Nelson said that after reading this over, he thought he was satisfied that if the staff thinks that the language that WWP was looking for is covered in this tariff and we can reach that point then we can just allow WWP to withdraw the application and go forward. Hadn’t thought about how to handle Kootenai’s concerns but perhaps starting first with Consumers would be an appropriate place to do that. Would move that the commission allow WWP to withdraw their application.
Commissioner Hansen asked if there was discussion?
Commissioner Smith said she was fine with the tariffs, the Company is on the hook if they don’t make proper arrangements with the developer - would allow them to withdraw the filing and work with the tariffs and guideline structure. Also agreed with Scott Woodbury that Kootenai’s concerns seem to be a separate matter.
Vote taken; motion carried unanimously.
11. Carolee Hall’s May 21, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: GTE Northwest Incorporated Advice 98-11 Requesting Approval to Add Call Waiting ID to its current GTE Calling Services Tariff Effective June 12, 1998 and Carolee Hall’s May 28, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: this matter.
Carolee reviewed the decision memo. Staff recommends a proforma revenue adjustment be made in the pending rate rebalancing case. GTE spoke to the project manager and an error was
discovered. After recalculation it is reduced to $33,000. Staff, however, still recommends approval of the filing but taking a look at it in the rebalancing case.
Commissioner Nelson made a motion to approve Item 11 with staff recommendation.
Vote taken; carried unanimously.
12. Scott Woodbury’s May 27, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. UWI-W-97-6 Decision Time Line.
Scott reviewed the decision memo; said it was from staff counsel and it was a memo regarding the timeline. Decision date under suspension period is June 14. Apprised the Commission of filings made since the case was heard, etc. Fact that the memo for decision is still in process and time is needed for completion, it is suggested that the Commission suspend the filing under Idaho Code 61-622, for 60 days. He has had conversations with the Chair of the case and it was anticipated that although 60 days were requested, that it appears reasonable that the Commission order could be issued by July 1. Joe Miller, attorney for United Water has responded to the request for suspension. Scott reviewed the Commissioners’ time constraints. Pointed out that a representative of the company and their counsel were in attendance today.
Commissioner Hansen asked Mr. Miller if the company wanted to make any remarks?
Joe Miller said he would just speak briefly - thought that the Commission probably knows that suspensions breed anxiety and when the company saw a 60 day extension that created anxiety for them. Anxiety is doable but the issue of the effective date of the rates is the concern. So when anxiety connected with a possible 60 day extension and anxiety that even then rates may not go into effect, anxiety got to a high level. Company understands the Commission’s time constraints and if the Commission needs additional time to make decisions it should certainly take that time. Company would request that in order to create some certainty that the Commission determine the effective date of those rates specifically, and company  requests that they be made effective June 14,  with a full decision to follow.  
Commissioner Nelson, case chairman said he thought the issues could be resolved and be ready for an order by June 18. He made a motion to suspend the case for an additional 30 days.
Commissioner Smith said she was going to suggest holding the Commissioners’ feet to the fire for a 14 day extension until July 1. She made that a substitute motion.
Commissioner Hansen commented that the Commission could find a time in between for a decision when their feet were cool. He called for a vote on the 15-day motion. Commissioners Hansen and Smith voted for that motion.
13. Weldon Stutzman’s May 28, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Case NO. GNR-T-98-6; Implementing Amendments to the Idaho Telecommunications Service Assistance Program.
Changes need to be implemented by July 1. Staff is suggesting a proposed order establishing a surcharge of 13 cents and staff also recommends appointing the current USF administrator as administrator of ITSAP on the belief that we have been duplicating costs.
Commissioner Hansen called for questions or discussion. Said he would like to get a little more information on the administrator’s duties and projection on how much time  will be spent on this and also doesn’t  have any problems with staff recommendation of Anderson’s appointment but may want to make sure that is what we want to do. Asked that we hold up on the appointment of the administrator for a week or two for the Commission to make sure we have all the information before we make that decision.  
Commissioner Smith suggested sending out the proposed order and say the Commission is investigating the Administrator matter but still use the calculations for the 13 cents.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought the Commission could do that. This is a proposed order and we can make changes in language.
Commissioner Smith said in order to give the people who might want to comment time we might state we are going to evaluate the administration of this fund and that one outcome is that Ms. Anderson will be the administrator and they could comment on that also. Would propose that.
Vote taken on that: carried unanimously.
14. Keith Hessing’s May 29, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Petition for Clarification of Order No. 27463 in Case No. IPC-E-97-13.
Keith Hessing reviewed the decision memo. Petition for Clarification asked for wording changing earlier PCA and FMC contract. It was discovered that the methodology in the FMC order was not accurate. Idaho Power Company’s request here is a result of PCA differences discovered by staff and the Company,  while reviewing the Company’s recent PCA filing in IPC-E-98-5. Staff concurs in the wording changes proposed in the Company’s petition with one minor change - replacing secondary with “second block”.
Commissioner Smith made a motion approving wording changes proposed by the Company and staff.   Motion carried unanimously.
RULEMAKING
15. Don Howell’s May 28, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Issuance of a Notice of Address Change in the Commission’s Administrative Rules, Case No. 31-0000-9801.
Don Howell reviewed the matter; said it is a housekeeping matter. Commission changed mailing address. Basically it has resulted in 23 rules having the old address in them. Have settled on a proposal where,  with a single action,  we can change the address in all 23 rules. This would be the cleanest way to do this. Staff is recommending that the staff go ahead and have the Rules Coordinator do the address change.
Commissioner Nelson made a motion to approve staff recommendation: motion carried unanimously.
16. Bev Barker/Cheri Copsey’s May 28, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Updating the Commission’s Customer Relation Rules for Telephone Corporations.
Cheri reviewed the decision memo. Commission’s Customer Relations Rules for Telephone Corporations have not been updated since 1995.   Some of the problems are generated by the newly competitive telecomm. environment. Have problems with slamming and problems with cramming.   Proposed changes fall into four categories. Some are housekeeping, they also have a series of rules on slamming and basically use FCC rules and regulations on those. Have also used recent legislation regarding slamming. Have a series of rules that staff thinks will address the cramming problems and finally have rules regarding telephone installation and held orders issues.   Bev Barker could speak with more specificity to the rules themselves.
Commissioner Smith said she was curious about what process had been used up to this point, are the telephone companies aware of the proposed changes?
Bev Barker replied that there have been informal conversations with U S West but there has not been a negotiated rulemaking process.
Commissioner Smith said what she was wondering was if staff should take a week and pass these by the companies and sift out the minor stuff so they don’t have to file comments on those types of things.
Bev Barker said the only concern staff has is the publication timing for the rules.
Cheri responded that the 16th would still be in that timeline.
Matter was held until the June 16 Decision Meeting.
Meeting was adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 13th day of July, 1998.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
19980601.min