19990420_2.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
April 20, 1999 - 1:30 P.M.
In attendance were Commissioners Dennis Hansen, Marsha H. Smith and Paul Kjellander and staff members Don Howell, Brad Purdy, Carolee Hall, Scott Woodbury, Weldon Stutzman, George Fink, Tonya Clark, David Scott, Terri Carlock, David Hattaway, Rick Sterling, Randy Lobb, Wayne Hart, Marge Maxwell, Birdelle Brown, Stephanie Miller,  Samantha Lawlis and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were Ron Lightfoot of U S West and Joe Miller, Attorney at Law.
Items from the published April 20, 1999 Agenda were discussed and acted upon as recorded herein.
Commission President Dennis Hansen called the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance.
First item considered was No. 1 - Minutes of April 5, 1999 Decision Meeting. (Minutes have circulated to the Commissioners for their review and corrections have been made).
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve said minutes; vote taken on motion; motion carried.
Next considered were the matters on the CONSENT AGENDA - 2 thru 14 plus No. 8A.
Commissioner Hansen asked if there were questions or comments in regard to any of the items on the Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Smith said she had a couple of questions. First on Item 4 - RNS-T-99-1, wanted to thank staff for their good work on this matter.
On No. 8, Avista’s Request for Exception to Utility Customer Relations Rule 107.02, Commissioner Smith said just as a reminder, that when Commissioners are given alternative questions it is hard to approve the matter on the Consent Agenda. When vote is taken on this agenda, she would like approve staff recommendation on  the question of grand fathering the exception and having the company file a revised tariff.
Commissioner Kjellander said he had a quick question on No. 8, for clarification, did the company catch the discrepancy in terms of the practice they were using or is it something we caught and brought to the attention of the company?
Marge Maxwell responded that in preparation for the rate case she was reviewing their forms to assure that they were following existing rules, and she discovered in talking to the company they were applying the refunds directly to the customer accounts and our rule in place for a number of years requires refunds directly to the customer.
Commissioner Kjellander asked what the company response was?
Marge said they hadn’t gotten any complaints and it would be costly to change their billing practices now.
Commissioner Kjellander then asked about No. 2 - Randy Lobb’s April 9, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: United Water Idaho’s Tariff Advice for Flat Rate Service.
Said further into today’s agenda, we have another flat rate proposal with regard to Barber Water.  United in that proposal has established a substantially lower rate than in this decision memo. Asked why we have that discrepancy of almost $20.00 in this item and the rate we will be looking at in a few minutes?
Randy replied there is really no correlation between those flat rate amounts. The one on Item 2 is in conjunction with a non-contiguous line extension policy  where the company goes out and provides service to a brand new system or a system with only a couple of customers. It is based on average residential. Primary reason for that tariff is that the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) has a no cut policy on many of their roads. The company wants to wait 5 years to meter, so during that time period they would apply that on specific incidents. On Barber, these are small lots and it would make the acquisition costly if the company went in and metered like their other customers.  There are some mobile home parks that are master-metered and the owner of the park charges the residents for the water. Staff is viewing the Barber Water acquisition as a specific case and the tariff (Item #2)  is more an application for a non-contiguous line extension.
Commissioner Kjellander asked - with the new subdivision, are they trying to incorporate larger lots and is that why they are looking at higher rates? Asked if there was only one subdivision that fits that right now?   Also, do we know whether they have another source of water for irrigation  and are they using that?
Randy Lobb said the rate was determined using all residential customers in United Water’s territory which includes small and large lots,  people who use domestic for watering and those who do not.  These customers in SpurWing do have separate irrigation. That is one of the reasons why there is a provision that they can request a meter if they so desire if they feel they would pay less on a metered rate. Tried to incorporate an average rate. These particular customers are not going to be using the domestic system for watering.
Commissioner Kjellander asked - if we were going to get to a fee that is more reasonable, why didn’t we pick a subdivision that already exists within their system and use that as a measurement, i.e., DeMeyer Park or the Hickories?   They don’t use city for their irrigation. Why did we take the whole mass of customers that don’t appear to be representative of that neighborhood?  
Randy Lobb replied he didn’t try to find a similar subdivision, but you might be able to do that. It seemed somewhat complicated. You could probably pin it down closer. If people believed that their bill would be lower by using a metered rate, they could request a meter. If they believe it is unfair, they can be metered. On the other hand, under the flat rate the water consumption is unlimited and no one subsidizes it. They are not interconnected with the rest of the system. It is a known water supply.
Commissioner Kjellander said in part you might be able to justify that rate, but to have it on the consent agenda today, he would like to hold off on a decision and get some comparisons of comparable subdivisions. Don’t feel comfortable with making a decision on it today. If the other commissioners concur, would like to move it off the consent agenda and get comparisons.
Commissioner Hansen asked Randy about the 5 year limit on digging up the streets and his question was, putting in a meter, say  at Foxtail,  if the person wanted a meter, are they going to dig up the street, is there a limitation of  5 years to the customers of the company,  could they put in a meter if one of them wanted to?
Randy replied it is not a prohibition, it is just more costly. It is simply more costly to do that,  so if the company does it, it is more costly to the customer.
Commissioner Hansen said if all of a sudden a customer had a swimming pool and water with United, it  might not be really financially feasible or wise for the company to not meter that for 5 years because it could be very costly. Would depend on the alternatives. They may decide it would be cheaper to meter that customer to control consumption. But if they don’t use much water it would be costly to meter.   Asked if this matter was held, could staff or the company provide the commissioners with the average cost in a subdivision like Commissioner Kjellander mentioned where they have a dual irrigation system? If the average is $36.00 instead of $56.00, then that makes quite a bit of difference. If we see where they have additional system and we see it is only a few dollars difference, how difficult would it be to know what is average in a similar subdivision? Is that difficult to get?
Randy Lobb said he didn’t think it was difficult to get the information. It might be difficult to find a similar subdivision. One he mentioned is SpurWing. A similar one would have to be found. They would have to have a separate irrigation system and their patterns would have to be the same.   You would have to record the consumption for a period of time to see if this is a representative amount or not; or you could pick one out and look to see if it is representative.
Commissioner Smith said she had no problem holding this item if the other two commissioners are uncomfortable but she would like to point out that staff time is also valuable. This is an upscale neighborhood and they are being asked to pay $56 every two months year-round. If we do ask for research,  would like to know what it will cost the company and staff to do this analysis.
Randy pointed out this tariff advice was filed March 19 and it is actually already in place and it is in compliance with the line extension policy. He gave the background of the tariff filing timing.  
It took effect officially yesterday and he didn’t know what the procedure is, Commission could hold it, but wanted to point out that information.
Commissioner Hansen commented that he didn’t think it really mattered what customers we are talking about, a person that is wealthy can have just as many concerns about paying as poverty-level. Think is a matter of fairness. Just want to make sure we are making the correct decision. This may not be the last request the Commission gets because of United Water  taking over new systems and getting into new areas. If we need to hold it to make sure, that is the wise thing to do. Asked Joe Miller if he wanted to comment.
Joe Miller said as Randy Lobb indicated, by simple operation of time the tariff has gone into effect but the company would be willing to work with staff to answer questions of the Commissioners with reference to determining if the flat rate here is fair and would be happy to work with Mr. Lobb to develop that information. Would suggest that while that is being done, that the tariff be allowed to stay in place since it only applies to a few customers all of whom have agreed to the rate that was proposed. Said he was unaware of any controversy with respect to these customers so if the tariff could stay in place so the company could have a legally-operating tariff to submit bills, that would be appreciated and in the meantime would try to answer those questions and get information back to the Commissioners so if the tariff needs to be modified for other subdivisions it could be. Company would go along  those lines.
Commissioner Kjellander said he could live with that.
Commissioner Hansen asked if there were any other questions or comments regarding any items on the consent agenda? Asked what the pleasure of the Commission was?
He then moved approval of the consent agenda items and on Item 2, to  approve the current tariff rate and request that additional information be provided the Commission. Called for discussion on the motion. Motion carried.
MATTERS IN PROGRESS
15. Weldon Stutzman’s April 14, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Processing Approval of Toll Dialing Parity Plans.
Weldon reviewed the decision memorandum. Staff is proposing that they be sent out for comment with a 25 day comment period and schedule them for settlement conference. He  would anticipate that the Commissioners should be available at that conference. Propose shortening the discovery time if there are requests for them.
Commissioners had no questions.
Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to approve staff recommendation; vote taken; motion carried unanimously.
16. Weldon Stutzman’s April 14, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: request by ITD for Amendment of the PUC’s Railroad Clearance Rules.
Weldon reviewed the decision memorandum. Indicated this proposal would save ITD money if they didn’t have to add 6 inches to the clearance. Staff is proposing to send this out on modified procedure and if nocomments are received, grant the request.
Commissioners had no questions.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve staff recommendation. Motion carried unanimously.
18. Carolee Hall’s April 15, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: U S West Tariff Advice No. 99-05-S Seeking authority to Add Albion Telephone Exchanges to its Burley/Declo Exchanges for EAS and to increase the Basic Rates for its Customers $1.13 Per Month for Cost Recovery; to be effective June 30, 1999.
Carolee reviewed the decision memo. Staff is recommending that this matter be processed under modified procedure because it is a rate increase.
Commissioner Smith asked what the Burley rate was right now? Thought their rates hadn’t changed.   This still wouldn’t move them to the regional rates.
Carolee said they didn’t get the whole eastern Idaho region.
Commissioner Smith asked what the rate would be now with the increase?
Carolee responded it would be $12.75 for residential.
Commissioner Smith clarified - and they will have Burley, Albion, Declo, Arimo, Rupert, Oakley and Paul.  
Commissioner Smith then made a motion to approve staff recommendation; motion carried unanimously.
19. Scott Woodbury’s April 16, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. UWI-W-99-2 (United Water) Proposed Purchase of Barber Water.
Scott reviewed the decision memorandum. Proposed rate would be $36.00 flat rate bi-monthly.  Currently they pay $10.90 summer rate and $8.90 from November to April. Propose that Idaho Shakespeare Festival would switch to metered rate. United Water recommended modified procedure.
Sharon Ullman has contacted Scott regarding flat rate and conservation issues. Staff recommends modified procedure with a comment period extended to 60 days to provide adequate time for investigation and discovery. Company would like that period of time shortened. Staff feels they need the 60 days. The company has scheduled a meeting with customers on the evening of May 4 to answer their concerns. Scott met with Ron Welch who submitted copy of the letter to customers and filed a petition. He has indicated to Scott that the Commission should not be interpreting the petition as opposition to the sale but merely an indication that they need a forum to express some of their concerns and they believe the application does not provide sufficient information regarding the company’s plans for this particular area, whether they will be interconnected, security of their wells, etc.  
This is before the Commission at this time to determine the appropriate procedure.
Commissioner Hansen called for questions.
Commissioner Kjellander asked Scott - in the first paragraph of the decision memo, it says you don’t believe there is a need for a formal technical hearing, asked if he had taken into consideration the $15,000 for installation of the telemetering, the $35,000 for repair of the storage reservoir and the $5,000 to rehabilitate wells. Asked if he had looked at those and considered them to be reasonable?
Scott replied that would be an engineering question and staff hasn’t initiated  its investigation into the case.   They are not prepared to answer the question as to reasonableness at this time. There was a meeting in early March where Randy Lobb and George Fink and some company members met with respect to this transaction. He was not present at that time. Didn’t know if those figures were advanced at that time.
Commissioner Hansen asked Randy Lobb to comment on that.
Randy Lobb said he and George met with United Water. They wanted to discuss general requirements staff would look at. Didn’t get into detail -  how much would be required, didn’t discuss the equipment need, etc. Staff concern was that the income would generate recovery of costs. There wasn’t any disagreement on those numbers. When we say from a technical standpoint a hearing is not necessary, we believe that the facts of the acquisition are straight forward and we don’t really have a problem with those.
Commissioner Smith said she thought probably the best way to get this done would be to have comment period after May 4 meeting while everybody has information in their heads and then have a public hearing the first part of June. Asked staff about staff members getting information ready the end of May.
Scott Woodbury spoke to vacation time of Bob Smith, assigned to the case.
Commissioner Smith said she just thought if some of these things bog down, everything just seems to fall apart. That is why she was trying to keep everything on track.
Scott Woodbury said he was looking at June 18 for hearing.
Commissioner Smith suggested working out the schedule.
Scott responded about timing. Was sure United would go forward in their commitment to turn around production requests within 10 days but don’t have the same degree of confidence that we would be able to obtain information from Mr. Triplett.
Commissioner Hansen asked if there were other questions or comments?
Commissioner Kjellander said he thought the Commission was leaning toward a hybrid schedule.  Thought technically how quickly we can move is the question. We ought to get on this as quickly as we can. The details can be worked out. Made a motion to go forward with the modified procedure and give people an opportunity to comment and learn more about the sale.
Commissioner Hansen said he would have the public hearing following the modified and will work out the schedule.
Motion carried.
Items 20 and 21 listed on the Agenda under Matters in Progress were pulled from the agenda at this time.
Commission President Hansen then moved Item 14 under Executive Session Matters to Matters In Progress, for discussion.
Commissioner Hansen asked Don Howell to summarize the matter.
Don said the staff is recommending that the Commission extend the current TRS contract with Bob Dunbar. It expires this month. In contacting staff and Mr. Dunbar, both are in agreement that the terms of the current contract are reasonable and staff would recommend a two-year extension of that contract that would take us past the time of his contract with Hamilton for TRS relay services.
Commissioner Hansen called for questions or comments.
Commissioner Smith said she wanted to thank Mr. Dunbar for the fine job he has done in the past. She made a motion to approve the extension.  
Motion carried.
Commissioner Smith then questions something that was not on the agenda. She said Idaho Power has filed for an effective date of May 16 for implementation of their PCA. If it is to be in effect by then it would need to get out on modified procedure. Suggested that Mr. Purdy send it out on modified procedure without going to decision meeting for that decision.
Meeting was then adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 4th day of May, 1999.
Myrna J. Walters, Commission Secretary