20001120.min.doc

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
NOVEMBER 20, 2000 – 1:30 PM

In attendance were Commissioners Dennis Hansen, Marsha Smith, and Paul Kjellander.

Commissioner Hansen called the meeting to order. He asked if there were any questions about any of the four items on the CONSENT AGENDA. Being none, he moved for approval of the Consent Agenda with the recommendations of the Staff. He noted that on item #3, Staff hadn't actually make a recommendation, although Staff indicated 6% should be the amount of interest paid on customer deposits. He noted that for that agenda item, 6% should be the rate used for the calendar year. A vote was then taken for approval of the Consent Agenda and the motion carried unanimously.

The next order of business was MATTERS IN PROGRESS:

Scott Woodbury’s November 9, 2000 Decision Memorandum re: Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) Methodology Proposed Changes—Initial Statements of Position/Agreement. Case No. AVU-E-00-6.

Scott Woodbury reviewed his Decision Memorandum and the three proposed adjustments. Commissioner Smith stated she had a procedural question and asked if notice was given regarding the discussions of the company and Staff so others could participate if they cared to. Scott replied there were no other parties. Commissioner Smith stated she understood that, and asked if we gave notice so people could have joined in if they had wished to participate. Scott said there was no notice given and what was before the Commission is essentially Staff’s position. Commissioner Smith said she was trying to ascertain if there needs to be a period of notice and comment to give public notice about changing the PCA so that other interested people can comment, or whether we have already given a notice that was adequate to advise interested people that we were in the process of changing the PCA. Mr. Woodbury stated he didn't think any further notice was required. Commissioner Smith asked what kind of notice was given. Mr. Woodbury replied there was notice of application, notice of initial comment period, and comments were solicited from as many parties and groups as they could find. He pointed out that the Commission obtained a letter of support for the Company's position and the case went pretty much by way of modified procedure. He said he felt it would be safe for the Commission to go with it given where we wound up as far as staff's position--the two positions that were initially filed on behalf of the staff and Avista. He stated no other comments were filed by parties. Commissioner Kjellander stated he didn't think he received the answer to Commissioner Smith's question and wanted to know if a company like Potlatch had the opportunity to file comments. Mr. Woodbury replied that they had opportunity to file but did not do so. Commissioner Hansen reiterated that since the Commission was being given assurance by Mr. Woodbury that all parties had the opportunity to participate, he moved that the Commission accept the proposed changes as agreed to by Staff and Avista. There was no discussion on the motion and it passed unanimously.
Scott Woodbury's November 9, 2000 Decision Memorandum re: Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Year 2000 Biennial Compliance Filing. Case No. IPC-E-00-10.

Mr. Woodbury reviewed his Decision Memo and then asked if the Commission should acknowledge receipt of the Company's filing or if the Commission wished to address the changes proposed by the Northwest Energy Coalition and Idaho Rivers United and require a change to the Company's IRP, based on the recommendations. Commissioner Kjellander questioned if the Commission has any jurisdictional control over emissions. He asked if he was missing something or if there was some statute that gives the Commission authority over emissions quality. Mr. Woodbury replied that the Commission doesn't have any express authority and thought it would fall under the authority of other agencies, such as the Department of Environmental Quality. Commissioner Kjellander said the reason he asked about jurisdiction was that before he would want to dismiss the request, he first wanted to make sure the Commission didn't have any kind of jurisdiction, and since it didn't appear that the Commission had jurisdiction, it would seem it might be an inappropriate request. He also asked about the August 7th letter and if staff believed the content of the letter was somehow lessened in value to the Commission if it was not included as an addendum to the IRP. Mr. Woodbury replied, "No."

Commissioner Kjellander asked if there was any real need to take a letter we already have in hand and include it in the IRP or if Staff felt that what it had today was sufficient to move the PUC in the right direction. Rick Sterling replied that from the Staff's standpoint, the letter stands for it is, whether it's in the IRP or not, although Staff didn't have any objection to including it as an addendum if that helps to satisfy other parties.

Commissioner Hansen stated that he had a question related to a statement the Company made in its response to Staff's letter about submitting "time of use pricing proposals to better reflect costs to consumers with the next general rate case or sooner." He said he was curious as to why there wasn't a date certain given rather than leaving it in limbo. He asked that if they didn't file another rate case for five to ten years, then would it mean the issue wouldn't be addressed. Mr. Sterling said he didn't think he could elaborate on the company's response. He noted the Company's response was made sometime after the Staff's comments. He said he was personally not involved in any discussion with the Company subsequent to their filing of the reply. Commissioner Hansen asked if the Company would care to respond. Bart Kline from Idaho Power replied that one of the reasons the Company wanted to do time of use pricing in conjunction with a rate case was because it is part of the rate design, and the Company didn't want to do a single issue kind of case just dealing with time of use pricing and not have it coordinated with all the other things they do in a general rate case. He said it is something the Company is working on and has discussed with Staff on an ongoing basis.

Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Kline when the Commission could expect to see the next rate case. Mr. Kline said it won't be ten years and it won't be five years--it will probably be sooner than that. Mr. Woodbury said that with respect to Commissioner Kjellander's concerns regarding the addendum, it appeared to him that in reading the Company's reply that it has some concerns as to the ease of including it because of the way it would affect the IRP and require some changes to the IRP. He noted the Company was still gathering information that might change things, so the company felt it was premature. Commissioner Hansen moved to acknowledge receipt of the Company's IRP and leave it at that. There was no discussion on the motion and it carried unanimously.

7. Bev Barker's November 17, 2000 Decision Memorandum re: Idaho Power Tariff Advice 00-08; Modification of Tariff Provisions Concerning Late Payment (Schedules 66 and MC-3).

Bev Barker reviewed her Decision Memorandum regarding Idaho Power's proposal to modify its tariff regarding late payment charges. Commissioner Smith moved approval of Staff's recommendations. There was no discussion and the motion carried unanimously.

8. Bev Barker's November 17, 2000 Decision Memorandum re: Request for Temporary Waiver from Requirements of Rule 201.11, Utility Customer Relations Rules.

Ms. Barker reviewed her Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Smith moved approval of Idaho Power's request for a temporary exemption to the rule. There was no discussion and the motion carried unanimously.

Commissioner Hansen then adjourned the meeting.

Dated at Boise, Idaho this _____ day of January, 2001.

___________________________
Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary