HomeMy WebLinkAbout19991104.min..docMINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
November 4, 1999 - 1:30 p.m.
The meeting was attended by Commissioners Dennis Hansen, Marsha H. Smith and Paul Kjellander.
Commissioner Hansen welcomed all in attendance and called the decision meeting to order.
Items from the published November 1, 1999 Agenda were discussed and acted upon as follows.
CONSENT AGENDA
The first item on our agenda today is the consent agenda. We have four items and I would ask the Commission if they have any question or any discussion on those four items. Being none, then I would move to approval of consent agenda according to staff recommendations, is there a discussion on that motion? Being none, vote taken; motion carried.
MATTERS IN PROGRESS
Commissioner Hansen moved item number 9 up to the first item of discussion. Don Faulkner with Avista is here with us on the phone.
9. Scott Woodbury's November 2, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. AVU-E-99-7 (Avista) Complaint (Mountain Mart v. Avista)
Scott reviewed the matter. Said the underlying action is a billing dispute involving Avista's reported use of an incorrect meter multiplier of 1 and bill preparation with a meter multiplier of 12. Recalculating and reaching back three years, the company has demanded an additional $13,180.82 from Mountain Mart and has indicated that it's willing to enter into arrangements for payments of that. Staff feels that the Commission should limit its involvement to a determination as to whether the company is complying with the rules and not become involved in a collection matter. Before the Commission then is the question whether this should be set for hearing to establish a more complete record for decision or whether the Commission is prepared to act on the basis of established record.
Commissioner Hansen asked if there is any discussion or questions from the Commission? Commissioner Hansen said he would like to make a comment, it seems that Avista has followed the rules outlined by the Commission. He felt treating Mountain Marts billing error differently than we do other Avista customers would be discriminatory and show preferential treatment. Is there any other comments or questions from the Commissioners?
Commissioner Kjellander: Mr. Woodbury, have you heard any indications from the company in regards to what type of credit arrangements they have made for the other customers and which ones might be available to this gentleman?
Scott replied I think Marge Maxwell might be able to speak to that. I do know they have offered to spread those costs for three years.
Commissioner Kjellander: thank you.
Commissioner Hansen: any other questions for discussion? None. I move to dismiss the formal complaint. Any discussion on that motion? Vote taken; motion carried.
5. Don Howell's November 1, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: U S West's Motion for and Extension of Time to File Comments in Case No. USW-T-99-21.
Don reviewed. U S West filed a motion on October 26, 1999 to postpone a filing cycle in the USW-T-99-21 case. He mentioned that the company had asked for relief on less than 14 day notice. Company only asked for 14 day extension on the first comment cycle but not on the second, therefore leaving second in place would only leave 4 to 5 days for persons to get comments in then have to immediately respond. The staff recommends that the second comment cycle also be expanded to approximately December 9th.
Commissioner Hansen asked if there was discussion for the Commission?
Commissioner Smith moved to the approval of extension of time.
Commissioner Hansen: we have a motion to grant the extension, also that would extend the due date for comments to December 9th. Any discussion on that motion? None. Vote taken; motion carried.
Don Howell's November 2, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Cambridge and Council Telephone Companies' Application for a General Rate Increase, Case Nos. CAM-T-99-2 and COU-T-99-2.
Don reviewed. The requested rate increases are predicated upon the Commission granting a number of EAS routes involving other telephone corporations. As part of the application, the Company requests the Commission waive procedural Rule 121.01. The company also requested that the rate case be taken up without holding evidentiary hearings, on modified procedure, and also request an effective date of less then 30 days. Staff recommended that the case be suspended for a period of thirty days plus 5 five months or until such time as the Commission may earlier issue a decision.
Commissioner Hansen asked if there were any questions for Mr. Howell from the Commission or any discussion on this matter? One question, even though the staff recommends thirty days plus five months, that really doesn't prohibit expediting this at a much more rapid pace.
Don Howell mentioned that staff anticipated that the case would be easier than starting from ground zero. Staff has already filed its first set of interrogatories, the company is in receipt of those interrogatories. Having performed an audit on the company already, there are many things that we do not have to start from ground zero. Staff is hopeful that we can move expeditiously to exam this, yet recognizing that the scheduling of public hearings and because we have four other companies involved in EAS portions that it will take some time to work out the logistics.
Commissioner Kjellander asked that if everything fell together perfectly, everything responded to well and everything got reviewed, are we talking 60 days, 90 days?
Don answered that 60 is out of the realm of reasonableness. 90 to 120 again, if the Commission has to give three weeks for public notice we have got to do a number of public notices for EAS public hearings. The staff has the information on the EAS.
So the answer is maybe?
Don replied with 90 to 150.
Commissioner Smith moved that the Commission grant the company the waiver of procedural rule 121.01. I would find there was not good cause to approve the application on less than thirty days notice, I would move to suspend the application for a period of 30 days plus 5 months which should run from November 20th which is 30 days after the date is was filed at the Commission, and I would establish an intervention deadline. I would it would not be necessary to order the company to do a press release. I think they indicated they had the intention to do that. With that I so move.
Commissioner Hansen: Okay, with that we have a motion before us. Any discussion on the motion? Being none. Vote taken. Motion carried.
Scott Woodbury's November 2, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. GNR-W-98-1 (Stoneridge Water) Certificate Application.
Scott reviewed. Stated that the company's filing was incomplete and proceedings were informally stayed pending further investigation. On August 25th of this year, staff filed completion of its investigation, filed a report with the Commission. Commission staff and the Stoneridge Recreation Club Condominium Association were the only parties to file comments. Both parties recommended adoption of staff's previously filed report.
Commissioner Kjellander moved to issue the certificate and approve the rates previously reflected in the notice.
Commissioner Hansen: We have a motion before us, any discussion? None. Vote taken, motion carried.
Scott Woodbury's November 2, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. UWI-W-99-4. (United Water) Proposed Purchase of Barber Water.
Scott reviewed. Stated that terms of sale had changed, the purchase price had been reduced to $58,000. United Water is still proposing $55,000 in capital improvements also changes to proposed rate design. Staff supports the Company's application, staff in its comments provides analysis regarding financial issues, purchase price, water system improvements, meter installation option, proposed customer rates, customer comments and Barber Water's status with Water Resources. Company is in general agreement with the staff's recommendations. Staff expressed concern regarding adequacy of media notice and recommended that the Commission schedule a further evening hearing.
Commissioner Kjellander. Asked that with the program outlined if there was any way to formally incorporate that in this. That maybe it could begin to happen when notification of the program exists. With that, given the situation that they faced as Barber Water is concerned is perhaps the best deal you could probably get.
Commissioner Smith replied that in her opinion public notice was adequate in this case, a press release did go out, and the paper did put it in even though it was that day. But to me that’s a much more meaningful notice than six weeks in advance of the hearing.
Commissioner Hansen complemented United Water for their efforts to work with the people and this change over. With that we have a motion before us. Vote taken. Motion carried.
10. Wayne Hart's November 2, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: September 30 Tariff Advice Submitted by Rural Telephone Company Increasing the Charges for Service Orders and Line Connections for New Customers.
Wayne reviewed. The proposal is to introduce a new set of connection move and change charges that apply to new customers only. Company justified the differential between new and existing service because of additional work required establishing an account and setting up the account in the accounting system. Staff would agree with the company that there are additional costs when they have a new customer. Staff would also not dispute that the old rates may not recover those costs. Staff believes that the new rates would be above costs and recommends approval.
Commissioner Hansen asked if there were any discussion or comments.
Commissioner Kjellander said to move for approval.
Commissioner Hansen: We have a move to approve. Any discussion on the motion? Vote taken, motion carried.
We will move to rulemaking. We have items 11-16; these rules have been before us earlier. Rules 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 will be considered together. There is no comment or changes and I would ask if there was any discussion on adopting those rules, then we would take number 15 as an exception. Don Howell answered that there was one comment filed on item number 12, and that one comment was in support of it.
Commissioner Hansen: I would move that the Commission adopt the proposed rules 11 through 14 and rule 16 as pending rules and forward the rules to legislative review. Is there discussion on that motion? None. Vote taken, motion carried.
Don Howell's November 1, 1999 Decision Memorandum re: Amendments to the Commission's Rules of Procedure, Case No. 31-0101-9901.
Don reviewed. The Commission received timely comments from legislative services, Citizens Telecommunications, U S West and the Northwest Industrial Gas Users. The Commission also received untimely comments from Potlatch and Troy, however those comments were identical to Citizens. The only electronic filing going on is for tariffs and price lists, the Commission in its electronic filing docket noted that it does intend to move on but at this point we are not tackling other areas such as exhibits, testimony, dockets and pleadings. As far as other comments, there are only three rules at issue. One proposed change to rule 121.02. Citizens and U S West offered comments to that rule.
Commissioner Smith asked if there was any need to add the words "after the work is provided" to staff? Clarify that staff chooses to ask for it, that means they are only asking for themselves. Or is it clear the way it is?
Don replied that if the Commissions intent that the additional proposed language only means the computer models be given to staff, that addition on the end would make it clear. What the Commission might consider is adding the words "for other parties" so it would read the staff or other parties may request the computer model itself.
Commissioner Smith replied: It seems to me that the staff stands in a different position from other parties. With the proper protections, and overcoming what I know are to be real problems in license agreements seems to be little reason not to give the staff access but there may be other reasons why other parties wouldn't get access. So, I wouldn't want to lump them together
Don: Obvious dealing with the issue of security and access, the other rules that Commission has imposed especially rule 67, deals with safeguarding protection of proprietary or trade secret data. Rule 67, U S West suggested that the language not be included in sub-paragraph ii but stand more or less on it's own. Staff would concur with that suggestion. The last rule, 243, the purpose for the amendments was that if the party intends to cross examine the witness or offer rebuttal testimony that is a trade secret the party anticipating that fact advise the Commission at the earliest possible time. U S West indicated that on the underlined portion that the language "soon or there after" added on to the end of the paragraph. Staff didn’t have any problem with that.
Commissioner Hansen asked if the Commission wishes to make changes to this proposed rule?
Commissioner Smith replied we should accept the change in rule 67 that the staff seems to agree was a structural kind of error. And in 243 I agree that it would be more clear to add the "soon or there after" is practical. My review of rule 121 the full context is clear that we are talking about staff. I would move that we do this.
Commissioner Hansen: We have a motion before us to make those changes in this proposed rule, is there any discussion? None. Vote taken, motion carried.
With that the decision meeting was adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 10th day of December, 1999.
Barbara Barrows, Assistant Commission Secretary
4