HomeMy WebLinkAbout20010205.min.docMINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
FEBRUARY 5, 2001 - 1:30 PM
In attendance were Commissioners Dennis Hansen, Marsha Smith, and Paul Kjellander.
Commissioner Hansen called the meeting to order. The first order of business was approval of items 1-6 on the CONSENT AGENDA. Commissioner Hansen noted that regarding item 2, page 2, line 4, the number should have an extra 0, with .002598 being the correct figure rather than .02598. He stated he wanted to make some comments regarding item 3—Avista's request for a deferred accounting order. He said he isn't sure the public wants to take this kind of risk. He noted that although Avista's request only allows the company to defer the cost, the problem lies when the Commission decides that the Company's decision on hedging is prudent. Commissioner Hansen said hedging is a big guessing game, and it's pretty easy to be proven wrong no matter which choice you make. He stated the customer is going to be upset and blame the company if it goes against them, while the company is guaranteed not to lose in this proposal and is held harmless for its actions. He noted the customer is in a win-lose situation, depending upon how the price goes against what they have hedged against. He said he felt the gains and losses should be shared between both the customer and shareholder, which is how the PCA works, with 10% going back so there is some motivation on the company's side to make sure decisions are prudent. He said that in the view of the customer, they would have more assurance if the company had something at stake. Commissioner Hansen stated he has a hard time supporting the request, even though it is just the first step, and he is concerned about the next step and what that will bring.
Commissioner Smith said she supports approving the deferral account requested and in her view the challenge for a utility is to make its best guess and balance its resource mix the best that it can. She said she didn't think a utility ought to rely entirely on being in the day-ahead or spot market or rely entirely upon long-term contracts. She noted that she understands Commissioner Hansen's concern that customers will be asked to pay back an account that will have almost a million dollars in it, but she still thought it was appropriate to create the account and then look in the future as to whether the Company made its best efforts, did the best degree of homework it could, and look at what it relied on to make its decisions and determine at that time if it acted prudently. Commissioner Smith then moved for approval of the Consent Agenda items.
Commissioner Hansen stated he would like to make a substitute motion to approve items 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 and vote on item 3 separately, since he wanted to be on record as opposing item 3. A vote was taken and the substitute motion passed unanimously. A vote then was taken on the separate motion regarding approval of item 3 and it carried on a 2-1 vote.
The next order of business was MATTERS IN PROGRESS:
Don Howell's January 29, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: The Commission's Examination Whether It Should Adopt the FCC's Slamming Rules. Case No. GNR-T-00-38.
Commissioner Hansen stated that the Commission would discuss and vote separately on each item in Mr. Howell's Decision Memorandum. Mr. Howell reviewed his Decision Memorandum up to the first question: Does the Commission wish to generally adopt and administer the new FCC slamming rules? Commissioner Kjellander stated he wanted to clarify that any calls received by the Attorney General's office related to slamming will be referred directly to the Commission. Mr. Howell replied that would be the procedure. Commissioner Kjellander made a motion that the Commission generally adopt and administer the new FCC slamming rules. There was no discussion on the motion and it passed unanimously.
Mr. Howell reviewed item 1 of his Memorandum—Processing Slamming Complaints. Commissioner Smith asked if customers will be required to go through the informal process before they can file a formal slamming complaint with the Commission. Mr. Howell replied that would be the case. Commissioner Smith said that seemed to be different from the Commission's usual approach, where informal processes are encouraged but not required. Mr. Howell replied that the Commission's rules governing informal and formal complaints indicate the Commission gets to decide what is the best way of processing complaints. Commissioner Smith noted that is done on a complaint specific basis, but as proposed it would be on a generic basis so that everything related to slamming would have to be first considered informally. Mr. Howell responded that by processing the complaints on an informal basis, we would not be logging a particular case into the Commission Secretary's case file, wouldn't be having formal answers, and in Staff's view they would just get on with the business of investigating the complaint with as little formal process as possible.
Commissioner Hansen asked if it would be too cumbersome if complaints could be processed either formally or informally, depending on which method the complainant chose. He said there could be a case where a person wanted to file a formal complaint and didn't want to go through the informal process. Mr. Howell said he thought our rules could accommodate giving the complainant, whether it’s a carrier or a customer, the choice of filing a formal or an informal complaint. If they wanted to do it formally, however, there are certain mandatory and procedural requirements that extend the timeline of investigating a complaint.
Commissioner Smith said that after considering it, she would be willing to support Staff's suggestion that completion of the informal complaint process be mandatory initially, and she noted there are probably some good administrative, procedural, and policy reasons for doing so in these types of complaints in order to prevent providers from using the process against each other by adding costs and dragging out the process. She added that any complainant always has the opportunity, if they are dissatisfied with the informal process, to file a formal complaint, where the Commission would hear it de novo, meaning we start over. She moved to answer each question under item 1 in the affirmative. There was no discussion on the motion and it passed unanimously.
Mr. Howell next reviewed item 2—Submitting Information or Documents Regarding the Complaint. There was no discussion on the information and Commissioner Hansen made a motion that the carriers be required to furnish the documents and information as suggested by AT&T. Commissioner Smith stated she would add "to the extent that it's available" because we can't require them to provide something that doesn't exist. Mr. Howell agreed that carriers had pointed out there may be some instances where there is an underlying billing agent so the alleged slamming carrier may not have the billing information. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Howell then reviewed item 3—Responding to the Complaint. Commissioner Smith asked if Qwest's proposal was for 20 business days or calendar days. Mr. Howell replied it was for 20 calendar days. Commissioner Smith suggested the time frame should be 21 days, or three weeks. She noted 10 business days could be pushing it for these kinds of complaints. Commissioner Hansen stated he was also concerned that 10 days wasn't long enough. Commissioner Kjellander said that in light of what was just mandated in the previous item, it will probably take more than a week to ten days to get all the information together, and if we're going to hold firm, they ought to have an appropriate amount of time to gather it. He stated he could live with 21 days. Commissioner Hansen made a motion to allow 21 days for carriers to respond to slamming complaints. A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Howell reviewed item 4—Administrative Appeal of the Slamming Determination. Commissioner Smith moved that in the spirit of consistency, 21 days should be the time period within which an appeal from Staff's written determination must be filed and that failure to file such a complaint is a waiver or abandonment of the complaint. There was no discussion on the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Howell reviewed item 5—Formal Reconsideration and Judicial Review. Commissioner Smith made a motion that Idaho laws and rules and Idaho courts be used for processing formal reconsideration and judicial review of slamming complaints. There was no discussion on the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Howell reviewed the final item in his Memorandum—Rule 606. Commissioner Kjellander questioned what the conflict is with Rule 606. Mr. Howell replied there isn't necessarily a conflict, but what the Staff envisioned was specifically spelling out and reiterating the FCC's rule in our own rules in a new slamming section, stating that unauthorized carriers be required to pay the PIC change charge. He said ATT's point is a technical one—if the federal rules already require it, then why would we need Rule 606. He said it's not that Rule 606 would be preempted by the federal rules but whether it is redundant. Commissioner Kjellander asked what it will cost us to remove Rule 606's redundancy. Mr. Howell replied that the answer to that question gets at what comes next after the Commission's order is promulgated. He said we would make temporary rules implementing the slamming rules that we would need gubernatorial approval, and in those temporary rules we would say the Commission will adopt the FCC's slamming rules found in CFR 49. He added it would be in that docket that we could either keep Rule 606 or we could eliminate it.
Commissioner Smith stated that on October 6, 2000 Mr. Howell sent a memorandum discussing implementing the temporary and proposed rules at the same time and included in that memo was discussion of deleting Rule 606. She said that this isn't something that has to be decided right this minute because the Staff has to come back with a proposal of rule implementation, and at that time the Commission could decide it. She moved that item 6 be tabled and taken care of later when the PUC decides temporary and proposed rules. There was no discussion on the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
The final item on the agenda was FULLY SUBMITTED MATTERS:
Scott Woodbury's February 1, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: PGA Increase $14,106,437 (29.19%). Case No. AVU-G-00-5 (Avista).
Commissioner Hansen stated the Commission was going to conduct private deliberations on this matter.
Having completed all the items on the agenda, he adjourned the meeting.
Dated this ____ day of March, 2001.
_________________________
COMMISSION SECRETARY