HomeMy WebLinkAbout20010521.min.docMINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
MAY 21, 2001 - 1:30 P.M.
In attendance were Commissioners Paul Kjellander, Marsha Smith, and Dennis Hansen.
Commissioner Kjellander called the meeting to order. The first order of business was APPROVAL OF MINUTES of April 2, April 4, April 16, April 30 and May 7, 2001 Decision Meetings. Commissioner Kjellander stated the minutes had been reviewed and if there were no objections, they would be approved. There were no objections and the minutes were approved.
The second order of business was the CONSENT AGENDA, items 2-11. Commissioner Kjellander asked if there were any questions or comments on any of the items. Commissioner Hansen stated he had a question regarding item #5 and asked why Staff was recommending that the company post a $25,000 bond when the company has satisfied all the requirements and rules of the Commission. John Hammond replied that it is his understanding that the company lacks any significant history of operations in the state and it is the company's first contact with the Commission, so to ensure compliance with Commission rules and protect customers, Staff recommended a bond.
Commissioner Smith stated she wanted to clarify that on item #10 the Commission is adopting a Staff recommendation, which is not to grant a waiver of TRS and USF requirements. There were no other questions or comments and Commissioner Kjellander moved for approval of the Consent Agenda items. A vote was taken on the motion and it passed unanimously.
The next order of business was MATTERS IN PROGRESS:
John R. Hamond's May 17, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Petitions for Clarification Regarding Idaho Power Company's Irrigation Buy-Back Program. Case No. IPC-E-01-3.
Mr. Hammond reviewed his Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Smith stated she had some comments for consideration. She stated it is noted in Mr. Hammond's Decision Memo that the Commission did not address whether the company should pay interest on amounts carried to the end of the program because of the failure of a customer to save 95% of the proportional monthly amount that was bid. She stated the Commission did not address this point because at the time the Commission considered it there was no suggestion that any amount other than the 25% would be held back and therefore it wasn't addressed because it wasn't even imagined that such a thing would happen. She said that in the RFP quoted on page 2 of the Decision Memo there are two inconsistent sentences—one that states "Idaho Power will pay bidder monthly for the portion of the Offered Energy Reduction actually provided during that month…." and the other that states, "For each month in which Bidder actually reduces its energy consumption from the monthly Base Energy Consumption Amount by at least 95%" then the company will pay Bidder 75% of that amount." She said the Commission was focused on the fact that it anticipated every irrigator who saved would get paid every month 75% of what they saved. She said she agrees with the Staff that generally it's better when more specific language controls over more general language in an agreement, but in this case, we ended up with something that seems very unreasonable and that is, even if customers achieve savings, if the savings aren't 95%, not only do they not get the 25% the company is holding back, they don't get anything for what they saved until November. She said it makes no sense to her whatsoever and in fact, she would not have approved a 25% hold back if the company wasn't going to pay customers in any month if they don't achieve the 95%. She questioned why the security of a 25% hold back would be needed if the company is holding back every month anyway when 95% isn't achieved She said it doesn’t seem the company should need the 25% hold back because there is nothing to be protected against. She stated the situation is confusing and unfair and at the very least, if the company insists it has to hold back not only the 25% but also the 75% in any month in which the irrigator doesn't meet 95% of that month's calculated amount, the company should offset it against the bills that are owed; otherwise, Idaho Power is operating on the money of the irrigators all summer. Commissioner Smith said that because of the PUC's failure to get into detail with the RFP it has led to an untenable position for the irrigators.
Commissioner Hansen said it seemed to him there is a contradiction where the petitioners are claiming there is almost a 60-day lag time from the time their meters are read until they receive their monthly payment, and yet the company's response gave the impression the lag time is not more than 10 days or two weeks. He said he would like to verify if there is actually a 60-day lag time from the time the meters are read and the payments are received. Mr. Hammond stated it would be best if the parties could address that issue since Staff has no actual documentation to support the claim that there is a 60-day lag time. He said Idaho Power reports it is a shorter period of time. He said Staff's recommendation was to make sure the payments are made in a timely fashion so irrigators aren't waiting the entire summer, and Staff wanted to streamline it so irrigators could get the checks as quickly as possible if they achieve the monthly savings amount. Commissioner Hansen asked what Staff recommends as a time frame. Mr. Hammond replied that Staff made no specific recommendation because it didn't want to add another layer of complexity to the program or impose an additional burden on the Company that might cost the Company more money.
There were no further questions. Commissioner Smith moved that in order to achieve equity in the situation with regard to those months in which in which the bidder does not achieve 95% of the proportional monthly amount of energy savings, the Company be given the option of either offsetting the amount against the customer's current bills or paying interest. She said she didn't know which option—interest or offset—will work best from the Company's point of view or which is more feasibly implemented. A vote was taken on the motion and it passed unanimously.
Lisa Nordstrom's May 17, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Idaho Power Company's Objection and Motion for Modification of the Commission's Scheduling Order in the Second Phase of the PCA Case. Case Nos. IPC-E-01-7; IPC-E-01-11; and IPC-E-01-16.
Ms. Nordstrom reviewed her Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Hansen commented that he is inclined to support the Commission's order that the Company and the parties need to file their arguments as prefiled testimony. He said the issue to him is more than that of just the legal question of whether there were approved rules in place. He noted the Commission deferred recovery of approximately $59 million pending further investigation into several issues, and we need to hear Idaho Power's response to the evidence the Staff uncovered and the public deserves to have that addressed. He stated the focus is on the prudency of Idaho Power's transactions during the months of April 2000 through February 2001, and he didn't think the questions can be adequately addressed with just filed comments, and they should be addressed by the process of submitting prefiled testimony as the Commission required in its earlier order. He made a motion that the Commission deny Idaho Power Company's motion.
Commissioner Smith said she got out the transcript of the prehearing conference and tends to agree with the Company's request. She said she didn't believe prefiled testimony was contemplated at the prehearing conference and it was all discussed in terms of comments. She said she assumed that what will happen after their comments are received is that at some point the Commission will determine it has to go to hearing and then there will be a round of prefiled testimony and exhibits. She said it seemed to her it will push the hearing and the decision out but it's the Company's $60 million and if they don't want to get it now, that's fine. She said when the prehearing conference was held, it wasn't contemplated this would be in the form of testimony and exhibits but it would be formal comments and they would be responded to in the form of comments.
Commissioner Hansen said he didn't have a problem if Idaho Power needs more time and he didn't object to putting together another time schedule to afford the Company the opportunity to prepare. He said he feels the issues are definitely very important and is committed to moving as quickly as possible while still doing a thorough job. He said that after the last hearing, he was under the impression we would be going the testimony route.
Commissioner Kjellander said that from his perspective and from what he had heard from the other Commissioners throughout the process, it has been the Commission's goal to keep the case moving forward without having the Commission delay the process in any fashion while trying to come to some fairly quick remedy on how to deal with the remaining $59 million still on the table. He said the initial order the Commission issued specifically addressed prefiled testimony but if the Company doesn't have the ability to get that filed and keep to the schedule, it should be allowed more time. He said he would like to see the prefiled testimony put in place up front so we can proceed. He said if the Company had the perception it just needed to file formal comments, the order specified prefiled testimony and he wanted to keep that in place. He said he questioned what we are looking at in terms of another prehearing conference, which would seem to be necessary given the fact the Company has requested more time to file pre-filed comments. Ms. Nordstrom responded that if the Commission decides that a pre-hearing conference is necessary, the Company needs to provide some parameters in which it can present its prefiled testimony and have the Commission set a date accordingly. Commissioner Kjellander stated that if it upholds the prefiled testimony issue, the Company is still saying it can't meet the deadline to get the testimony filed. He said he didn't recall seeing any date extension. Ms. Nordstrom said she isn't sure how much longer the Company needs in order to file its prefiled testimony. Commissioner Kjellander asked her if we need to have another prehearing conference to decide the time frame. She replied that could be necessary because subsequent dates that have been set in the scheduling order would be affected.
Commissioner Kjellander noted there was a motion on the table and clarified that it confirmed the original order. He asked Commissioner Hansen if his motion included the provision of having a prehearing conference and if it was his intent to have the prehearing conference before a date is set for filing the prefiled testimony. Commissioner Hansen confirmed his motion was to deny Idaho Power's motion and hold a prehearing conference to establish a date for filing prefiled testimony. A vote was taken on the motion and it passed with Commissioner Kjellander and Commissioner Hansen voting in favor of the motion and Commissioner Smith opposed. Commissioner Smith commented that prehearing conferences held solely for the purposes of looking at calendars and picking dates can be held by telephone conference.
Don Howell's May 17, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Qwest's Motion to Extend the Schedule for Filing Its Direct Testimony and the Hearing in the Microserv vs. Qwest Complaint. Case No. USW-T-99-20
Mr. Howell reviewed his Decision Memo. Commissioner Smith stated that as chairman of the case, she would like to comment. She stated the case has been open since 1999, and if Qwest needs another week or two, nobody is prejudiced by giving it to them. She said considering the history and the actions of the parties in this case, the most that can be hoped for is to get the case finished. She said she would grant Qwest's motion and noted that she didn't think Qwest had the burden of establishing subterfuge, but that was neither here nor there with regard to the request for more time. She made a motion to order that Qwest file its prefiled testimony one week after it gets the documents it is entitled to through the subpoenas and the discovery, and that the hearing be set sometime after that according to what works for the Commission's schedule. There were no further comments. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
Beverly Barker's May 18, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Complaints from Mobile Home/RV Parks Concerning Impact of Idaho Power Residential Rate Change.
Ms. Barker reviewed her Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Kjellander commented that he appreciated Staff proposing two alternatives and would agree with the Company and the Staff that alternative #1 seems to be the easier one to put together, given the fact that this is a one-year scenario. He said it doesn't make sense to spend the better part of the summer trying to come up with another temporary fix for a short-term problem. He said his only concern is launching into a formal versus an informal investigation, and he said he is leaning more towards an informal investigation that could become formal if need be.
Commissioner Hansen said that looking at the alternatives, he thought #1 would be better. Even with that alternative, there would be the possibility that the trailer park owners with master meters will still be faced with a small amount of difference between what is paid and what is collected. Ms. Barker replied that Staff hadn't looked at each situation but did run a quick calculation on one mobile home park, and it was just about a wash if the park was billed at the uniform 23% and then collected from its tenants under the Schedule 1 tiered rate, based on historical usage that had been measured.
Commissioner Hansen asked how many customers were on the master meter program. Ms. Barker replied there are 50 parks that we know of and possibly a few more, and 40 of those are on the residential rate.
Commissioner Smith said she agreed with the comments and was also leaning toward Schedule 1, having recently discovered just how limited Idaho Power's capability is to read meters. She said she concurred that further investigation into this matter should be done on an informal basis because an informal process works best to get participation, and when there's a more formal proposal, then the Commission can use a more formal process.
Commissioner Kjellander asked if she would so move, and Commissioner Smith agreed that her comments could be the motion. A vote was taken and it passed unanimously.
The next order of business was RULEMAKING:
Don Howell's May 17, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Adoption of the FCC's Slamming Rules. Case No. 31-4101-0101.
Mr. Howell reviewed his Decision Memorandum. There were no questions or comments. Commissioner Kjellander moved that the Commission issue the rules as temporary and proposed with the changes as outlined by Mr. Howell, and that the temporary rule be effective July 16, 2001. There were no comments on the motion. A vote was taken on the motion and it passed unanimously.
The final item on the agenda was under FULLY SUBMITTED MATTERS:
Weldon Stutzman's May 16, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Qwest's Motion for Clarification of Order Approving Installation of Fiber Route. Case No. GNR-T-00-40.
Commissioner Kjellander stated the Commission would deliberate on this item privately. He then adjourned the meeting.
Dated this _____ day of July, 2001.
___________________________________
COMMISSION SECRETARY
5