19980915_1.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
September 15, 1998 - 1:30 P.M.
In attendance were Commissioners Dennis Hansen, Ralph Nelson and Marsha H. Smith and staff members Don Howell, Scott Woodbury, Bev Barker, Joe Cusick, Wayne Hart, Brad Purdy, Weldon Stutzman, Tonya Clark, Bill Eastlake, Rita Scott, David Scott, Doug Copsey, Carolee Hall and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were Woody Richards, Attorney at Law; Skip Worthan of Intermountain Gas Company; Jim Wozniak of U S West and Thane Twiggs of Idaho Power Company.
Items from the Published September 15, 1998 Decision Meeting Agenda were discussed and acted upon as recorded herein.
Commission President Dennis Hansen called the decision meeting to order.
First item on the agenda was: Minutes of September 9, 1998 Decision Meeting. (Draft of Minutes previously circulated to the Commissioners for review and no corrections were necessary).
Commissioner Smith made a motion to approve the minutes; vote taken; motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items 2-5 were listed on the Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Hansen asked if there were any comments or questions on any of the items on the Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Nelson made a motion to approve the consent agenda items; vote taken; motion carried unanimously.
MATTERS IN PROGRESS
6. Scott Woodbury’s September 11, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. INT-G-98-3 (Intermountain Gas Company) Proposed Standards for Competitive Practices.
Scott Woodbury reviewed the decision memorandum; suggested that the Company Reply Comments would be good to use for decision-making tree - using their comments and the structure of the document. Did indicate that Stephanie Miller was not able to attend the decision meeting today and would not be available to respond to questions; Company representatives were present. Said it had been suggested that some other procedure is appropriate rather than the Company filing proposed tariffs. When the Company filed Reply Comments, Stephanie Miller questioned whether staff should file a reply to those. Thought that might bring another filing by the Company and decided instead it was time to bring the matter back to the Commissioners to see how to proceed.
Commissioner Nelson said he has been through the proposal and the comments and thought he was not at a point where he could look  at it and see how it would affect the every day operations of the Company. Thought what he needed was an opportunity to sit down with someone knowledgeable and have the commissioners ask questions. Was thinking workshop, need an opportunity for the Commissioners to go through these. There are 15 paragraphs on the operation alone. Would appreciate an opportunity to sit down and go through the comments and say how does this change it and get an understanding in his mind.
Commissioner Hansen said he felt the same as Commissioner Nelson. The Company has responded well to a lot of these and yet he felt he needed to go through it and understand it. Think it would be beneficial if the three Commissioners did that together. He favored that approach.
Commissioner Smith said she felt the same way. Need a meeting to sit down with the Company, Staff, and  Idaho Power and other commenters, if they want and go through the points one by one; what the tariff is proposing, how it will work, if we agree or disagree. Said that is what she needed - a systematic way to plow through each one of them.
Commissioner Nelson commented he was not familiar enough with the everyday operations.
Commissioner Smith said a decision meeting setting is not the proper forum for this.
Commissioner Hansen asked Scott Woodbury to schedule a date certain for this.
7. Wayne Hart’s September 11, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Public Interest Payphones - GNR-T-98-1 Working Group Report.
Wayne reviewed the decision memo in detail. Said the one relevant issue in which the working group failed to reach a consensus was whether the notice to a payphone site owner/provider that service might be terminated should inform the owner/provider of the option to petition the Commission and the criteria the Commission would consider in determining whether the site qualified for public interest payphone support. Staff wishes some direction now from the Commissioners in regard to: (1) Accepting  the market trial and (2), if so, what notice would the Commission prefer for these sites?
Commissioner Nelson commented he didn’t recall this being an issue in the past 5/6 years. Asked Wayne if there was a problem?
Wayne explained what has happened since payphones were deregulated. One complaint was from the City of Glenns Ferry. Cities and Chambers also thought the Commission would have received more complaints if the public had known what was going on.
After discussion of the matter, Commissioner Nelson suggested adopting the approach suggested by the working group.
Commissioner Smith commented that she thought the Commission should do what the working group suggested. But she did have a problem with the criteria that involved city and county. Thought that was delegating Commission authority. Think the Commission should decide if it is a public interest phone. Also think the notice should include an explanation of the process that should come before the Commission if it is a problem. In some cases, these phones are the very life line.  
Wayne Hart commented that Legal had also suggested that.
Commissioner Nelson then made his suggestion a motion; vote taken; motion carried unanimously.
FULLY SUBMITTED MATTERS
8. Scott Woodbury’s September 11, 1998 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. BAR-W-98-1 (Barber Water) Petition for Reconsideration.
Scott reviewed the matter; petition for reconsideration was filed by Idaho Consumer Affairs. Commission also received a letter from Ronald Welch posing questions of water rights and the ability to serve. Also questioned why the Idaho Shakespeare Festival made an appearance at the decision meeting and he was not provided with any notice. Matter before the Commission at this time is to decide if reconsideration should be granted and whether a hearing should be established.
Commissioner Hansen called for questions or comments. Said he would comment. Didn’t see where any benefit would be brought about by holding a hearing.   Didn’t see any additional issues that they are asking to be brought forth that we have not already considered. That was his feeling on this.
Scott Woodbury said the only thing that was not before the Commission before was, we said the facilities were contributed by the customers of the company and Ms. Kreizenbeck felt that the Idaho Shakespeare Festival was getting a cheaper ride.
Commissioner Smith said she thought the important issues were that the existing customers were protected from an increase in expense or a decrease in service quality. Thought staff carefully researched those areas and the Commission adopted their recommends. Given the protections for the customers, thought a hearing was not necessary.   With the safeguards for current customers and monitoring, don’t believe there are any issues that warrant the Commission going  to the time and expense of a formal hearing.
Commissioner Nelson said he didn’t have anything to add.
Commissioner Hansen said the question is: whether the Commission should grant or deny the petition for reconsideration. He then made a motion to deny the petition for reconsideration. Vote was taken; motion carried unanimously.
Meeting was then adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this ___day of September, 1998.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary