19990816_2.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1999 - 1:30 P.M.
In attendance were Commissioners Dennis Hansen, Marsha H. Smith and Paul Kjellander and staff members Doug Cooley, Tonya Clark, Don Howell, Wayne Hart, Carolee Hall, Joe Cusick, Ron Law, Stephanie Miller, Dave Schunke and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were Jim Wozniak of U S West; Larry Ripley and Bart Kline of Idaho Power Company and Joe Miller, Attorney at Law.
Commissioner Hansen called the decision meeting to order.
First order of business was consideration of the Minutes of the August 3 and August 9, 1999 Decision Meetings. The minutes have circulated to the commissioners for their review and corrections have been made.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes; vote taken on the motion; carried.
Next order of business was the Consent Agenda - Item 2. Carolee Hall’s August 10, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: U S West Requesting Authorization to Grandfather Its Custom Solutions Services in Northern Idaho to Simplify Choices for Customers and Sales Consultants; Requesting an Effective Date of August 30, 1999.
Commissioner Hansen called for questions or discussion. Hearing none, he made a motion to approve staff recommendation on Item 2; vote taken; motion carried.
MATTERS IN PROGRESS
3. Cheri C. Copsey’s August 12, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: CenturyTel of the Gem State, Inc. Tariff Advice No. 99-3 -- Intralata Dialing Parity Tariff; Case No. CGS-T-99-3.
There was no discussion on the matter. Commissioner Smith made a motion to approve staff recommendation; vote taken; motion carried.
4. Wayne Hart’s August 9, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Telephone Number Conservation; Investigation Into Rate Center Consolidation in U S West-South Service Area.
Wayne Hart reviewed the matter. Said staff recommends the commission open a case to consider the consolidation of rate centers in the U S WEST-South area. Staff suggests this may be accomplished without a hearing, and recommends the use of modified procedure with a timetable that includes an initial comment cycle and reply cycle.
Commissioner Kjellander asked Wayne about the number of prefixes  required to serve the Treasure Valley in his decision memo, did he know how many they could be consolidated into?
Wayne replied he thought perhaps one, but there is a problem in some areas with 911,  if you consolidate across two community boundaries, you may not be able to consolidate down to one then.
Commissioner Kjellander asked - if this is successful, did Wayne have any idea of our ability to extend the life of the 208 area code?
Wayne replied it should extend it for years.
Commissioner Kjellander asked if existing ones would be grandfathered in?
Wayne said if the companies don’t use them they would have to be turned back into the numbering plan administrator. More than likely those who have them would keep them.
Commissioner Hansen asked if this would require a lot from the local company?
Wayne said staff’s understanding is they would have to do considerable reprogramming but it is primarily an issue to long distance companies.
Commissioner Hansen asked if it could be costly to them?
Wayne said it was his understanding that it is minimal.
Commissioner Hansen asked if it was limited to this part of the State, not the entire State?
Wayne said if it is successful here, it would be expanded to the rest of the State. This was an initial effort where extensive EAS been granted in this area.
Commissioner Kjellander said he would go with staff recommendation and move for approval.
Vote taken; motion carried.
RULEMAKING
5. Don Howell’s August 10, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Proposed Changes to the Commission’s Rules of Procedure and Title 62 Telephone Corporation Rules, IDAPA 31.01.01.000 and 31.42.01.000. and
6. Don Howell’s August 16, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Proposed Clarification to the Commission’s Rules 103 and 105 Regarding Utilities’ Summaries of Testimony at Commission Hearings, IDAPA 31.42.02.103 and 31.21.02.105.
Don Howell asked that these two matters be discussed concurrently. Said he had circulated the proposed rules to several lawyers and then had circulated their reply comments to the Commissioners.  One thing he would note, he had asked them to speak to proposed electronic filing rules. Those were not now incorporated into the proposed rules. Electronic filing rules are at step one only, on a voluntary basis. Said he had distributed proposed rules and didn’t know how the Commissioners wanted to work through these.
Commissioner Hansen said he preferred to discuss  only those the Commissioner had questions on.
Commissioner Smith asked  about wording for electronic and home page. That will be added.
Started with 016. Service by Commission.
Commissioner Smith said her question is: what if somebody asks to be served by fax?
Don Howell said he thought fax service was not contemplated in this. Could say - upon request.
Rule 26. Informal Files May be Investigative Records. Updates reference to updates to Public Records Act.
039. Persons--persons Not Parties--Interested Persons. Adds counties to our list of persons who normally receiving notices of modified procedure, etc. Staff recommends adding counties peculiar to that utility.
049. Notice of Parties
People can indicate a preference but still need to be aware that not everyone can file electronically. Could indicate in the notice of parties who could be served electronically. This needs to be inserted into 041.01.
Commissioner Kjellander asked about timeliness on electronic filings, wonder if that was an issue.
Don Howell said we have rules that speak to when filings are made. Those timelines shouldn’t be affected whether you file electronically or in hard copies.
061. Filing Documents with the Commission--Number of Copies--Facsimile Transmission (FAX) (Rule 61).
Clean-ups.
067. Information Exempt From Public Review--Definitions--Form--Procedures (Rule 67).
Staff recommends that 67 sets out procedures for handling confidential information. a. “Trade secrets”. Page 9 - explained confidential information.
.03 Procedure. this rule is to amend the procedures.  
Commissioner Hansen had a question. Do we need to go further than is spelled out here? For a comfort level do we need to know it is under lock and key, or what procedure we have? That seemed to be the biggest concern they had. Feel that we need to go into a little more detail here.  
How are we going to segregate this material? Feel it would be a comfort level for people to know how it is going to be segregated.
Don Howell said that can be added.
Commissioner Smith suggested - stored in a secure area, with limited access.
Don Howell said he would put in that proposed language.
04. Protective agreements. Mary Hobson questioned the last sentence of .04. Don read Ms. Hobson’s comments. Asked with the changes to .03 and .02 of Erickssen, was that also agreeable? It was.
072 and 076 deleted motor carrier references, as did 102 and 111.
01. Name, Address and Form Form of Business - references to electronic address.
112. Form and Contents--Existing Utility and 113. Notice of Application--Orders. Delete reference to Motor carrier applications. 121.01 delete “other than a motor carrier”.
121.02 Added “the staff may request that the computer model itself be provided.
03. Take out reference to motor carrier applications.

122.02 Add “power cost adjustment” (PCA).
123. Delete regulated common carrier.
131. Delete “other than regulated carriers”.
141. thru 147 - adding security issuance changes to code.
162. Change to intervenor funding language.  
201. Delete reference to Motor Carrier Rules.
202.02 Delete motor carrier matters and changed mailed to provided (rather than forwarded).
231. Prepared Testimony and Exhibits. .05 Changed readable to searchable disks in...
02. Procedures. Added. Commissioner Smith spoke to Page 10 - trade secrets.
243. How hearings are held. There may be occasion for the commission to close hearings.
331. Petitions and Cross Petitions for Reconsideration. Took out “rule” and added any issue decided in a final order.
Commissioner Hansen asked if any of the utility reps would care to comment on this?
Larry Ripley did ask what the process is.
Don Howell replied. The Commission will issue an order and concurrently wil send them to the Rules Coordinator as a proposal for rulemaking and then under the APA the parties will have 20 days from the time they are published in the rules Bulletin and then the Commission will get comments, they will be reviewed and the commission will again act. A final order is issued and another notice of pending rules will be issued but they will not be effective until the last day of the 2000 legislature. There are a number of areas where parties can get into rulemaking. Our rules are then sugject to legislative review.
6. Don Howell’s August 16, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Proposed Clarification to the Commission’s Rules 103 and 105 Regarding Utilities; Summaries of Testimony at Commission Hearings, IDAPA 31.41.01.103 and 31.21.02.105.
105. Summary of Positions and Testimony. Gas, Electric and Water Public Utilities and
103. Summary of Positions and Testimony -- Telephone Companies.
Reason for rule change is that at all Commission hearings utility is to make available summaries.  All we are doing here is repeating that information. Last change added intervenors.
Commissioner Hansen asked - are we following this rule now? Do we have such summaries?
Don replied it is not in the rules of procedure, that may be part of the problem.
Commissioner Hansen asked if it would be helpful to have a date certain prior to the hearings to have that filed? Without a date certain you could walk into the hearing and put your summaries down just before the hearing started. What about lead time?  
Don said the date certain is the date of the hearing. Wanted to avoid summaries being used for cross examination.
Commissioner Hansen said that could be difficult. On Scottish Power, how would it have been handled?
They have to have it for the public hearing.
Commissioner Smith said there wasn’t much indication in this rule that something must be done in writing. Think it is just as good or better to have a representative stand up there saying what is available.
Commissioners discussed either/or.
Commissioner Kjellander said the only question he had was: do you see there being any difference between oral or printed?
Larry Ripley from Idaho Power gave a brief history of the rule. Said this rule was devised for large rate hearings when the Commission was asked what the positions of the various parties were? The PIO was uncomfortable speaking for the utility and intervenors. At the time of the technical hearings you would be required to have in the back of the room, a press release so the media could come in and get a copy of that.  The utilities then contemplated that the parties were picking it up and using it for cross examination. That is where the rule came from.
Commissioner Kjellander said he saw it as both. Think it has a dual purpose. Still have a question on oral part, how that might be secured. Asked Commissioner Smith what her intent was?
Commissioner Smith said she thought there was nothing speaking to whether or not we are requiring in writing or oral or both.
Don Howell said it has been the Commission’s practice in the last two or three years to require an oral presentation. It has been on a case by case basis. If the Commission wanted to add an “oral” rule, could add a subsection for that.
Larry Ripley commented he thought the Commission was talking about two different procedures. When the Commission has a public hearing, the Commission has required a public statement from the applicant so that the public has an understanding about what has been going on. So in the notices the Commission has required a public statement or discussion about the proceedings. That is totally different from this rule. This rule is designed so that in technical hearings the applicant was to put a release out for the media. Think that is two different things. Could have a company representative explain what is going on. Think it is mixing two different rules, two different requirements.  
Commissioner Smith said she thought the Commission was trying to get information. Think it is up to us to decide what information and what format.
Joe Miller, Attorney at Law said he was just going to raise a question, does the Commission really want a rule that says at all Commission hearings, taking into account the vast number of hearings the Commission has, that you have very little public interest associated with them, do you want to impose this requirement on the small utilities? Point is whether the question of how to provide access to the public shouldn’t vary case to case and rather than a blanket rule, wouldn’t it be better for the Commission to at the time of the issuance of the scheduling order, when you have a sense of what this case is about, the Commission indicate what public notification the company should follow in this public case, rather than a sledge hammer way to govern the many types of cases that come before the Commission.
Tonya Clark said being one of the staff members requesting this, it is her theory that if we could get a summary before the hearing whether it is a few days before,  at the same time as the filing of the prefiled testimony, that that was a valuable tool to be used by the PIO and consumer staff. That was her thinking.
Commissioner Smith said she would like to note that sometimes between when prefiled is filed and when it goes to hearing, there can be a substantial change in position by a party. At the hearing you would have the most recent information. Did not support having a summary filed with the prefiled testimony.
Commissioner Hansen said he thought it was a cumbersome rule. Thought there was a requirement to summarize all the testimony. If you had eight people testifying, each one would have to have a brief summary of their testimony. Looking at Scottish Power,  we would have another book with summaries.  Liked Mr. Miller’s suggestion that the Commission make that call when we set the hearings, ie EAS hearings, it is helpful to have a public statement at the beginning of the hearing. Think it could be both ways.
Commissioner Kjellander said he liked the idea of it being optional, Commission deciding what hearings and in what format. With those changes, we could get that in there and get a rule. He made that a motion;  could live with (1) Optional whether to do one and (2),  Optional format.
Approved.
5. Proposed rule changes.
Commissioner Hansen asked what the pleasure of the Commission was?  
Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to move forward with proposed changes and move to the next step. There were a number of changes outlined in the presentation of Mr. Howell and made a motion that those would be incorporated. Vote taken: motion carried.
6. Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to proceed on with this rule. Motion carried.
Meeting was adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 8th day of September, 1999.
Myrna J. Walters, Commission Secretary