19980616_2.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
June 16, 1998 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance were Commissioners Dennis Hansen, Ralph Nelson and Marsha H. Smith and staff members Ron Law, David Scott, Brad Purdy, Bev Barker, Don Howell, Scott Woodbury, George Fink, Carolee Hall, Tonya Clark, Terri Carlock, Rita Scott, Bob Smith, Rick Sterling, Stephanie Miller  and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were Mary Hobson, Attorney at Law; Jim Wozniak, U S West; Larry Ripley of Idaho Power Company; and Joe Miller, Attorney at Law.
Commissioner President Dennis Hansen called the meeting to order.
Matters listed on the Published June 16, 1998 Decision Meeting Agenda were discussed and acted upon as follows.
Consent Agenda - Items 1 thru 8 plus Item 10.
Commissioner Hansen asked if there were any questions or if any of the Commissioners wanted to discuss any of the items on the consent agenda. There were no question.
Commissioner Nelson then made a motion to approve all items on the consent agenda; motion carried unanimously.
MATTERS IN PROGRESS
9. Brad Purdy’s June 1, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-98-4; Application of Idaho Power Company for Authority to Discontinue its Irrigation Conservation Program.
Brad Purdy reviewed the matter. Said staff position is that the company should continue the program because it has had considerable success. It appears to be a cost-effective acquisition of a resource and is favorable to the irrigators. Company contends that this year it is being pursued by NEEA. Staff questions whether in fact these programs are actually being implemented by NEEA.  The irrigation pumpers support the termination of the program but note it has been successful, etc. If it is terminated the irrigators request having until the end of this year for participation. Mr. Griff of Grico Limited Partnership advocates that the program stay in place.  But, if it is terminated he recommends that those who would have otherwise qualified in 1997 or the spring of 1998 be allowed to participate thru May 1, 1999, with six months following that May 1 deadline to compete the project. Staff also suggested that parties have until spring next year to complete their participation in the program.
Commissioner Hansen called for comments or questions.   He commented that he agreed with the staff that NEEA doesn’t have a program in place to replace this but since the irrigators support the termination, he would also. But, do need to give irrigation customers until the end of 1998.  Also think the company needs to notify the customers who were misinformed earlier that were told the program had been terminated.  
Commissioner Nelson said because he wasn’t sure if we discontinue December 31, does that give customers time to get in and allow enough time to complete work that needs to be done? Think it is going to take awhile to get notice out.
Commissioner Hansen asked Commissioner Nelson if he was concerned that applications that had to be turned in by December 31, that they be given the opportunity to participate in the program?
Commissioner Nelson said yes, he wasn’t sure how long it takes to do the work.
Brad Purdy said there is some lag time between approval of the application and the work. Staff has recommended that the company accept applications through April 1 of next year. The Company is suggesting that irrigators have all the work under the program by the end of this year. Also the company in  its supplemental comments said they believe there should be cut-off times varying depending on whether they are on large program or some other program. Company proposed that should the Commission choose to terminate the program that irrigators have 30 days from the termination to get their applications in.
Commissioner Hansen said to clarify - he was advocating that we allow the cut-off of December 31, 1998.
Commissioner Smith asked Commissioner Hansen under his proposal that would give next year for the work?
Commissioner Hansen said he would assume by April or May (irrigating season) would be the cut-off time. What kind of lag time would you have if an application was filed in December, what would we be looking at for implementation, or would it depend on how many, assuming if you are going to handle all of them, how long would it take to complete that - three months, 6 months, etc.?
Larry Ripley, Attorney for Idaho Power then responded. Said the Company under Ag Choices has four programs: (1) small agricultural through his local supplier of pumps, etc., replaces the pumps and receives money from the company for the replacement. (2) Medium  program is  where Idaho Power goes out and performs the audit with Idaho Power employees and makes recommendations as to what should be done to improve the system. Irrigator signs up for audit; then audit is performed; then irrigator makes the decision about whether to pursue the recommendations.   This program takes the longest period of time. Audits can only be performed while the system is functioning. During this season you would perform the audit, etc., that would take until the beginning of the 1999 season to complete the work. (3) and (4) New and Large is where Idaho Power does not perform the audit. Those are performed by hiring consultants for the individual that desires to install any type of new irrigation. Company divides that into two parts.  Under a new system, there is nothing for the customer to wait on. Should be able to commence with feasibility studies, taking application, etc., that is the one the company believes could be completed by the end of the year. You are talking about a brand new entry system but on that program is the upgrade of the larger system currently in effect. That system does require that the irrigator hire consultants that would make the determination as to what should be done. That is then provided to Idaho Power and the Company decides if the proposals fall within the program.  Again, Company believes that audit or feasibility study should be performed by the end of this irrigation season and they would have until the end of the fall to complete these programs. That is why it is broken down into those pieces. Said in summary: There is small, medium - which company could get overwhelmed with  and new and large which could be wrapped up by the end of the year.
Commissioner Smith said she understands the 30-day open enrollment is just for large and new or existing, if so, what is the proposal for the small and medium?   
Larry Ripley responded the Company would be willing to go through the end of the year at her suggestion.
Commissioner Smith asked for clarification on that.
Larry Ripley said he didn’t distinguish when the programs should be finished. Thought they all could end by the end of the year. If the Commissioners do not go along with that, think all programs should be looked at. On the small, all you are doing is replacing pumps, don’t think it should be carried over to 1999.
Commissioner Hansen said the question before the Commission now is how we want to phase this program out. Asked for discussion on that.
Commissioner Smith said she dug out the 1997 Conservation Plan filed April 1997 on ag choices, there was not one word about phasing it out. Talked about accomplishments but out in the field were telling the customers it is going to be discontinued. Said she would go with the company proposal on the large, both new and existing, if the customers are given 30/60 days. Is okay on the medium if you want to hold that over, but if we have made a decision to discontinue, phase it out as soon as possible.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought applications might be accepted until September.
Commissioner Smith said season would be ending anywhere from August to October.
Commissioner Hansen said he had one more question, would the company be able to perform the audit, if we said the cut-off is September 30, and we assumed the company made all those audits, then on medium, if you couldn’t get out, should have a chance at the beginning of the next season.  If you guaranteed that all the audits would be performed by September 30, wouldn’t have a problem with the cut-off?  Asked Larry Ripley if he could comment on that.
Larry said he couldn’t guarantee that the Company would do all of them. If Company got inundated and got more than could be performed, Company would notify the Commission that they were unable to do them and would come up with a mechanism on how to resolve that. Would have to work out how we could perform that function. Have talked to the individuals who do that and one recommendation would be to decide if it were cost-effective to hire more people, or should we carry them over. Don’t want to get into the problem where the customer would say I would like to do it next year, not this year. If we do run into that problem and it is the Commission’s desire, we would file with the commission that we were unable to do the audits and file our proposal. We will not cancel and say we are not doing the program.
Commissioner Smith then made a motion that we adopt the company’s recommendation for the small, new and large but for medium accept Commissioner Hansen’s recommendation that if they apply and the audits are completed by September, that the installation could occur next year.
Vote taken on the motion: carried unanimously.
11. Scott Woodbury’s June 10, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: MCG-W-98-1; McGuire Estates Water Co. Application for Rate Increase.
Scott Woodbury reviewed the decision memo. Staff recommends an increase of $16,085 which represented a 20.83% increase; about $3.67 per month. Staff has considered an appropriate rate design and recommends increased  base service charge to $14.20 per month and the commodity charge to $.54 per thousand gallons. Company has reviewed staff recommendations and concurs with staff proposal. There have been three letters from customers. Two had concerns about expansion of the system. Company indicates that expansion is not going to occur. Staff recommends a proposed order and modified procedure with the standard comment period.  
Company hasn’t been in for a rate increase for 8 years but with respect to the $3,000 unaudited well repair, they didn’t have documentation and hadn’t included that in the rate request.
Commissioner Nelson made a motion to put the matter out by way of a proposed order to include the $3,000 in rate base, etc., and ask the company for documentation for that expense. Motion carried unanimously.
12. Scott Woodbury’s July 10, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: WWP Electric Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)-1999 and WWP Natural Gas Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)-1999.
Scott Woodbury reviewed the matter. Company has made similar requests in other states. Staff supports the Company in its request for a one year postponement in its scheduled electric and natural gas IRP filings. Staff recommends that the Company assign a case number to each letter request, treat the matter as a petition requesting modification, amendment or stay of an existing order and in lieu of further notice or modified procedure and upon a finding of good cause issue a final Order approving the requested change.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve staff recommendation; vote taken; motion carried.
13. Birdelle Brown and Cheri Copsey’s June 8, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. CTC-T-98-3; Citizens Telecommunications of Idaho’s Application to Rebalance its Rates for Telecommunications Services.
Cheri Copsey reviewed the decision memorandum. Company maintains that this is a revenue neutral proposal. She reviewed the EAS proposals set out on Page 4 of the Decision Memo. Company suggests that there is no reason for a technical hearing in this matter. Staff has recommended that there be public hearings so the customers have an opportunity to comment on the rebalancing and the proposed EAS.
Commissioner Nelson said he was not sure he wanted to go to Aberdeen again. Parma/Wilder and McCall would be the bulk of the company’s territory. Asked if the staff was going to look at costs at all in this case - cost of local service versus access?
Birdelle Brown responded - staff did an audit and as a result found access charges needed  to be decreased by 3 cents. Beyond that staff did not intend to go into costs.
Commissioner Nelson commented he thought this was a substantial rate change.
Commissioner Smith said the question was,  had any analysis been done for the shift from access to local and will staff look at costs.
Birdelle responded staff hadn’t yet but it could be included in the investigation.
Commissioner Smith asked if that could be done in 21 days and file comment?
Terri Carlock said the actual costs were part of the audit. The shift is what will have to be looked at now. It depends on how much detail is needed. A basic review is what staff anticipated doing.
Joe Cusick said normally it seems on a case like this costs are not something we look at. Audit staff has established revenue requirement - 3 cents change in access rates. Now Citizens is earning at the authorized rate of return.   This simply tends to rebalance this by shifting some from access to local. It is not something that he would normally envision looking at,  local versus access to determine their authorized rate of return.
Commissioner Nelson said there was going to be a large shift in costs to customers.
Joe commented there will be winners and losers. Was not entirely sure what he was looking at.
Commissioner Nelson said local rates are being raised from $9 to $18. Is staff going to file comments in this regard?
Joe responded staff would.
Commissioner Hansen then asked what the pleasure of the Commissioners was?
Commissioner Smith made a motion that this be put out for comment on modified procedure for 21 days and if people need more time they can ask for it; and that the Commission schedule public hearings that are appropriate.
Commissioner Hansen asked if there was discussion on the motion. Hearing none, vote was taken; motion carried unanimously.
13A. Case No. M-8357-1 Application of Roy & Nila Jackson, dba Capitol Couriers for a Certificate of Motor Carrier Authority/Protest of Capitol Couriers, Inc.
Brad reviewed the decision memo. Pointed out that the Jacksons have been using this name since 1989.  
Commissioner Hansen said he tended to feel that this protest is outside the scope of the Commission and  made a motion to issue the permit. Motion carried unanimously.
14. Bev Barker and Cheri Copsey’s May 28, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Updating the Commission’s Customer Relations Rules for Telephone Corporations. (Held from June 1, 1998 Decision Meeting).
Cheri reviewed the decision memorandum, indicating that since the June 1, 1998 Decision Meeting the proposal has been circulated informally  and a number of minor changes to the proposed rules have been made to accommodate those comments.   Substantative changes will be considered when they go out for comment.
Commissioner Hansen called for questions.
Commissioner Smith said there were comments from U S West, did anyone else respond?
Cheri said she did talk to Michael Creamer, Attorney for independent telecos. Did incorporate a number of his comments. Was concerned for the rural LECS that the installation rules did not allow for when they created new facilities, thought that was too strict.  
Bev Barker said she also talked to AT&T and MCI, Albion, Midvale and GTE. Just received GTE comments. Didn’t have time to incorporate those. They basically reiterated what staff heard from other companies.
Commissioner Smith said it is not too late while they are in the comment period.
Commissioner Nelson made a motion that the rules be send out for comment.
Mary Hobson, Attorney representing U S West commented that U S West appreciated the opportunity to provide comments at this initial stage. There was one area that she wanted to bring to the Commission.   Their concern is the amount of deposit for MTS service. Thought there was a different standard now.   Questioned the 12 months of historical data required. Said Idaho is the only jurisdicition that requires that level of history for deposits. It has to be retreaved manually. It has created a lot of problems for U S West. Would like the Commission to look at Rules 105 and 110 together.
Commissioner Smith said she had noted that in the comments and was curious about it.
Bev Barker commented that staff thought it was permature. Staff and company have disagreed on this for sometime. Talked with staff counsel and decided that those particular changes were not appropriate at this time and we had not proposed them earlier.  
Cheri said it was really because U S West has raised the issue but has not come in with a proposal. If U S West has some language, they can come forward.  
Commissioner Nelson said he thought we had a timeline to meet with the Rules Coordinator.
*Commenting to the proposed rules published by the Rules Coordinator are requested in the rulemaking.
Commissioner Nelson’s motion to send the rules out for comment then was voted on; carried unanimously.
Meeting was adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 15th day of July, 1998.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary