19991025_1.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
October 25, 1999 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance were Commissioners Dennis Hansen, Marsha H. Smith and Paul Kjellander and staff members Don Howell, Brad Purdy, Ron Law, Scott Woodbury, Terri Carlock, Tonya Clark, Stephanie Miller, Marge Maxwell, Bill Eastlake, Madonna Faunce, George Fink, Rick Sterling and Myrna Walters. Also in attendance were Jeannette Bowman of Idaho Power Company and Joe Miller, Attorney at Law.
Commission President Dennis Hansen called the meeting to order. First order of business was approval of the Minutes of the October 12, 199 Decision Meeting. The Minutes have circulated to the Commissioners for review and corrections have been made. Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes; motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items 2 through 4.
Commissioner Hansen called for discussion or questions. Hearing none, made a motion to approve staff recommendation on items 2 through 4. Vote taken: motion carried.
Under Matters in Progress, Item 11 - George Fink’s October 21, 1999 Decision Memorandum regarding Idaho Power Company Tariff Advice 99-10; Surge Protection Installation and Removal Services, was withdrawn from the agenda at this time.
MATTERS IN PROGRESS
5. Brad Purdy’s October 6, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-99-9; Idaho Power Company’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint of Floyd Audette.
Brad reviewed the matter.
Commissioner Smith said the matter was confusing but she finally understood it. In ‘97 or ‘98 Mr. Audette was involved as a developer in an area. That is now done. In ‘99 he was involved in a different subdivision and he was treated as an individual rather than a developer. That also went okay. Now he wants the Commission to go back to the ‘97 or ‘98 matter and treat him as an individual.
Brad said Mr. Audette is disputing whether there was a real agreement.
Carol Cooper is the Complaint Investigator who has been speaking to Mr. Audette.
Commissioner Smith commented there were two different subdivisions at two different times.
Commissioner Hansen’s question was whether Commissioner Smith had outlined this appropriately?
Carol Cooper said Mr. Audette did sign a contract for the first arrangement, because he thought he had to. He didn’t come forward on this in his informal complaint.
Commissioner Kjellander asked if Mr. Audette signed away his option to exercise his rights under the rules of the Commission? Usually they stipulate that they are not going to come back to the Commission. Asked if anything like that was signed?
Carol said it may be in the contract but she didn’t know that for sure.
Commissioner Kjellander asked if what the Commissioners were being asked is if Mr. Audette can come to the Commission for further action?
Brad Purdy said all that is pending right now is that Idaho Power Company has asked to have it dismissed.
Commissioner Hansen said in ‘97 they say it was resolved informally. Do we have any backup on this? Do we know for sure that both parties agree?
Carol Cooper said Idaho Power did resolve the easement question. Said she did not review the contract. Did not know how he was treated at that time.
Brad Purdy said the question brought to the staff for resolution in this instance was the easement problem. That was not at issue in the first matter.  
Commissioner Smith repeated that both subdivisions are done now.
Commissioner Kjellander asked: Is the Commission being asked to look at Rule 24 and whether or not he has the right of review of what happened in the past? Its not whether the agreement is valid and should stand?  
Brad Purdy said an informal resolution does take away your right for formal. You are being asked whether he is banned from filing a complaint. It just seems at this juncture the question is whether he has the right to file a formal complaint.
Commissioner Smith said the Commission could find that he could file a complaint but it should be dismissed.
Commissioner Kjellander said he was inclined to agree in part that he might have a ruling in his mind of how he would go. However, according to Rule 24, Mr. Audette should be granted the ability to file a formal complaint. The way he reads Rule 24. The last sentence in Rule 24 says the commission could take it up at anytime.
Brad Purdy said Idaho Power noted that Mr. Audette should be asked to file a set of facts that indicate more clearly what is position is, etc. If the Commission feels at this time that there isn’t enough information, it could be set up anyway you want procedurally to get Mr. Audette’s point of view.  
Commissioner Kjellander said he thought clearly Mr. Audette does have that right and the company does need to respond to a complaint if it were clear. Said he would deny the motion to dismiss the case and if Mr. Audette wants to file a more detailed complaint, the company should respond.
Commissioner Hansen called for discussion on the motion. Said he thinks Commissioner Kjellander makes a good point and according to the rules a person does have a right to make a formal complaint, but in this particular case, it needs to be clarified and this particular instance doesn’t qualify as a formal complaint.
Commissioner Smith asked Commissioner Kjellander to repeat his motion.
Commissioner Kjellander said on Page 3 of the Decision Memorandum it says “in the event the commission denies the motion, staff recommends that, first, Idaho Power be required to file an answer to the complaint to the best of its ability. “Then the Commission could request Mr. Audette to provide a more detailed written statement in support of his complaint....”
Commissioner Smith commented that seemed backwards to her. Mr. Audette should file a more detailed explanation and the company should then respond. What we have from him right now is a not sufficient; what he can add may help.
Motion was made that Mr. Audette be requested to provide a more detailed complaint. The Commission doesn’t see that what he has filed is adequate. When the additional information is received, Idaho Power should then respond.
Brad Purdy asked; then would the commission issue another summons and complaint and start again?
Commissioner Smith responded Mr. Audette is to file additional information to the original complaint and let Idaho Power respond. It is insufficient as it is filed.
Commissioner Kjellander said the Commission believes Mr. Audette has the right to file but the commission would like to indicate to him that what is on file may not be sufficient to convince the Commission. And that with this decision, the commission hopes to provide guidance to beef the complaint  up if he hopes to have the commission rule on this and give Idaho Power Company time to respond.
Commissioner Hansen said in review: Idaho Power Company has asked that the complaint be dismissed. The Commission is denying the request to dismiss the complaint. However, Commissioner Kjellander has indicated that we are putting that  in the order to help this
individual realize what he needs to do and what the company can expect if he does file additional information.
Brad Purdy said he has already filed a complaint.
Commissioner Kjellander said we are offering him some guidance to file supplemental information.
Brad Purdy said he would just add that in the decision memo it indicates that staff finds the policy is ambiguous and whether you think that is relevant to this case it is up to you. Staff does see a problem in that regard.  
Commissioner Smith read from Idaho Power’s responses.
Vote was taken on the motion to deny the request to dismiss the complaint. Carried.
6. Randy Lobb’s October 12, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: IPC-E-99-11; Special Line Installation Arrangement.
Randy Lobb reviewed the matter. Said the proposal deviates from current policy. What this does is allow the “group” to contribute equally. Staff agrees that this is a more equitable and reasonable application than the existing tariffs provide. Believe that the arrangements won’t be burdensome to Idaho Power customers. Staff doesn’t recommend that this be approved all the time. The Commission has previously approved situations in an undeveloped subdivision. Staff recommends approval. Also recommends that in this particular case the unusual conditions caused be allowed for recovery. The Association was formed through negotiation. Seems to be in agreement. Staff believes that the proposal wouldn’t increase or change the tariff of rates on existing contracts therefore staff believes the Commission can decide this issue on its merits.
Commissioner Hansen called for discussion. Hearing none, Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve staff recommendation (Approve on case by case basis).
Vote taken; Motion carried.
7. Brad Purdy’s October 13, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-99-7; Application of Idaho Power Company to Offset 1998 and 1999 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Payments Against Reserved Funds.
Brad Purdy reviewed the decision memorandum. Decisions for the Commissioners are listed on Page 7 of the Decision Memorandum.  
Commissioner Hansen called for discussion. He commented. Said he was pleased that their record over all is as good as it has been. Said one thing he was concerned about is he wants to make sure the programs are cost effective and beneficial for Idaho customers. Just looking at the whole picture, doesn’t have a problem approving 98 and 99 subject to an audit, but before we had done another year, we are 3 years into this, do like to know the benefits to Idaho customers. The last year with their ag choices, they weren’t very successful. It was not effective in Idaho. Am not their judge and jury in this but said those were the concerns he had. It is effective on a regional basis but some are concerned of how it was going to flow back to Idaho.  
Called for questions.
Commissioner Kjellander said with the 1999 expenditures we have three choices, with the dollar amount so far, has staff done a review of this so far?
Lynn Anderson stepped forward to respond to questions. He said no, staff has not audited or done much investigation of the expenditures and NEEA itself does not evaluate it much better for 1998 actual and estimates through March of 1999.
Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to approve the recovery of the 1998 expenditures through offset of revenue sharing balance. ($1,615,882).
There was no discussion; motion carried.
Commissioner Kjellander then made a second motion to accept (a) that the entire 1999 expenditure be deferred until after a final prudence review is conducted.  
Commissioner Smith said in her view, instead of having to have them file another application, unless staff finds something in their audit that needs to come before the Commission, she would like some process that is kind of like (3) Idaho Power allowed the recovery of $792,586.72 of its 1999 expenditure with a conditional authorization for recovery of the balance of the 1999 payments following a Staff audit as proposed by Idaho Power. (Both a proforma audit as well as an accounting audit). Say you are pre-approved subject to this, that if there is a problem, come back to the Commission so we don’t have to have another application.
Commissioner Kjellander then withdrew his motion.
Commissioner Smith made her comments into a motion.
Brad Purdy asked for clarification. Asked if the Commissioners were approving the concept but that the actual not be set out. Think the offset should occur after the audit, but before next spring. Do see revenue sharing at the same time as PCA. Would like the offset to happen before that.  
Lynn Anderson commented not much of that is in staff’s control.  
Commissioner Smith said we made a commitment for 3 years and this is already the third year. Think it should just have an offset.
Vote taken: motion carried.
8. Terri Carlock’s October 19, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Idaho Power Company AG Choices Payments.
Terri Carlock reviewed the matter. Staff has audited the payments and the back-up supports that payment and recommends a letter be sent to Idaho Power authorizes the transfer of $168,414.35 from the reserve for recovery of these payments.  
Commissioner Hansen made a motion that staff recommendation be approved authorizing the transfer and to have Stephanie Miller sign the letter to the company.
Vote taken; motion carried.
9. Scott Woodbury’s October 21, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. IPC-E-99-8(Idaho Power) Cancellation of PURPA Contract Northside Canal Co./Y-8 Hydro (IdaWest Energy Co.)
Scott Woodbury reviewed the matter. There is a savings to the customers if the contract is terminated. This was processed according to modified procedure. Staff recommends approval.
Commissioner Kjellander asked about the impact of the cost savings, will those show up in the next PCA?
Scott said yes it would be recovered.
Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to cancel the power sale agreement based on the conditions set out in the decision memo. Vote taken: motion carried.
10. Scott Woodbury’s October 21, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. AVU-G-99-2 (Avista) Annual Purchase Gas Adjustment (PGA) Filing.
Company spoke to the timing of the filing. There were a number of letters from the customers.  This morning the Commission received additional comments.  
Commissioner Hansen said over the past there has been a reduction in some years. Asked if Scott recalled them speaking to that?
Commissioner Kjellander said on Page 3 of Schedule 150 he noted that the decimal point at 2.567 was incorrect. That will be corrected. He then made a motion to approve the application.  Asked that the press release in this matter try to alleviate some of the confusion of the customers on this matter, pointing out that it was a “purchased gas adjustment” not a rate case.  
Commissioner Hansen said he agreed and there have been some years where there have been credits and those should be mentioned.
Commissioner Smith said that was a good point but she wouldn’t say that -the company has no choice on the price of gas.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve the 2.78% increase. Vote taken: motion carried.
Item No. 11 was withdrawn from the Agenda.
Meeting was adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 10th day of November, 1999.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary