19990119_1.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
January 19, 1999 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance were Commissioners Dennis Hansen, Ralph Nelson and Marsha H. Smith and staff members Don Howell, Cheri Copsey, Brad Purdy, Randy Lobb, Joe Cusick, Stephanie Miller, Carolee Hall, Rita Scott, Doug Cooley, Rick Sterling and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were Jeannette Bowman of Idaho Power Company and George Hubert of Citizens Telecom.
Commission President Dennis Hansen called the meeting to order.
First matter to be considered was the Consent Agenda (Items 1 - 5).
Commissioner Hansen asked if there were questions or comments concerning any of the matters on the Consent Agenda.
Commissioners had none. Commissioner Nelson made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda; vote taken; motion carried unanimously.
Next to be considered was MATTERS IN PROGRESS
6. Scott Woodbury’s January 8, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. UWI-W-98-5 (United Water Idaho) Certificate Amendment (Spurwing/Foxtail)(Held from 1-12-99 Decision Meeting).
In Scott’s absence, Randy Lobb, staff engineering supervisor, reviewed the matter. Staff in this case contends that deviation from the tariff is so significant that the agreements should be considered as special agreements, and not a non-contiguous tariff expansion. Staff expresses concern regarding precedent if this expansion is treated as a Rule 74-78 non-contiguous extension.
Commissioner Hansen called for questions or comments in regard to this matter.
Commissioner Nelson said the decision memorandum talks about the company making application to acquire these non-contiguous systems under special agreement. Asked if the Commission couldn’t go ahead and approve this as a special agreement now?  
Randy Lobb replied that staff did not oppose approval of a special agreement but staff does recommend that the company has made a significant investment and would want to hold current customers harmless if the special agreement was approved. Once they come in for a rate case they would want recovery and we would want to make sure there was revenue to cover cost.
Commissioner Hansen asked if this included the upgrade of the well?
Randy said it did.
Commissioner Nelson said he would make a motion to approve this application as a special agreement to expand their service territory.
Commissioner Smith commented that she didn’t care what it was called, she was in favor of expanding the territory without speaking to cost recovery.
Commissioner Hansen commented that if he understood what staff just said is that in another rate case we are not setting a precedent, that this  would not be considered  rate base income if they had an adequate number of customers sign up to recover the cost, is that correct? His concern is what we are doing is handling this as a special agreement and in that the ratepayers would be held harmless for the $127,000 and the $15,000, is that correct?
Randy replied - essentially yes. The general body of ratepayers is at risk if it doesn’t develop. We are concerned that there may be insufficient revenue to recover the cost and that would be an issue in the next rate case.
Commissioner Smith said the precedent of the investment and the recovery of the costs is not being decided when we approve this.
Randy said the difference between a special contract and the non-contiguous tariff, was set up so revenue would be generated before construction, so that wouldn’t be an issue. This is the first acquisition that has been made under the non-contiguous tariff and staff wants to make sure this was not the standards.
Commissioner Nelson said his motion was intended to be just as he stated. We are not addressing cost issues at this time but they will be in the next rate case.
Commissioner Hansen repeated - motion has been made to approve this as a special contract. Vote taken; motion carried unanimously.
7. Brad Purdy’s January 15, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-98-15; Idaho Power’s Application for Approval of Purchase Agreement with TASCO.
Brad reviewed the matter. Company wants to base the price paid to TASCO on market-based prices. Staff was the only party  to comment. Believe that the index is appropriate but express concern that because the company purchases from five other customers under Schedule 86, the rates are somewhat higher than what is currently being paid under 86 and that the company should come in with a change to that schedule. Idaho Power has agreed they will come in with such an application within 30 days.
Commissioner Nelson asked if anyone had contacted the other customers on Schedule 86 about moving to another tariff?
Brad said to his knowledge no one has contacted the other customers. Thought we could deal with that in the filing Idaho Power makes. If they have problems they can come forward then.
Commissioner Smith said she was encouraged with the possibility of revising the method used for establishing rates under Schedule 86 so she would make a motion to approve staff recommendation on the filing.
Vote taken; motion carried unanimously.
8. Don Howell’s January 12, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Petition to Close the “OLD” Grade Crossing in Ponderay, Case No. UPR-R-99-1.
Don Howell reviewed the decision memorandum. A settlement conference has been tentatively scheduled for February 9 in Sandpoint.  
Commissioner Nelson made a motion to approve staff recommendation to convene said settlement conference.
Commissioner Hansen said he had a question first - asked Don if he was saying that all the conditions agreed to by the parties have been met with the exception of the railroad assuring public access to the crossing?
Don Howell explained the problem. City still maintains that the second requirement (assurance of access) has not been  met.
Commissioner Hansen asked if the Union Pacific can’t do something about that?
Don said if there is opposition, the Commission is empowered to hear the opposition and make a ruling on that.
Commissioner Hansen said it looked to him like the Commission said if you do this and this, you can close the old crossing. Then in ‘94 they withdrew the petition. His concern is a commitment was made in ‘86, has the railroad done their part or not? Is the city bringing in new issues, is it being expanded from what the Commission zeroed in on in ‘86?
Don said the existing question is: the city now wants to bring up other things. There are  new businesses in that area and they think closure of that old crossing would be detrimental.
Commissioner Hansen asked if the February meeting was to discuss the existing issue or to discuss new things?
Don said he thought the primary reason for the meeting is whether the requirement has been met - for closure of the old crossing.
Commissioner Nelson repeated his motion to approve staff recommendation.
Commissioner Hansen asked for discussion.
Commissioner Smith comments - this matter has been going on for 12 years and counting, asked who was going to go to Sandpoint?
Don said on February 9 he and Ron Law will be going.
Commissioners approved the motion unanimously.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 25th day of January, 1999.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary