20010709.min.doc

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
JULY 9, 2001 - 1:30 PM

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 items 1—4 on the CONSENT AGENDA. There were no comments or discussion and the Consent Agenda was approved.

The next order of business was MATTERS IN PROGRESS:

Don Howell's July 5, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: The Commission's Broadband Procedural Order. Case No. GNR-T-01-10.

Mr. Howell reviewed his Decision Memorandum. He noted the Staff doesn't believe there is any serious disagreement with the items included in the Commission's proposed Order. He said the Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the proposed Order, reissue it, and consider augmenting item 1 in the proposed Order to indicate what kind of carrier the applicant is because there are different criteria for different carriers. He said the Staff proposed on item 1 that an additional sentence be included to indicate whether the applicant is a telecommunications carrier, a commercial mobile service carrier, a cable or open video operator, a satellite carrier or other type of wireless carrier. He said given Qwest's comments, the Staff also suggested an additional sentence be added to item 5 requiring that the applicants provide a specific list of qualified equipment or types of equipment. He said for instance, if the applicant is a wireline carrier, it could receive credit for poles, conduit, racks, batteries, structures, buildings, but they can at least specify those types of equipment.

Commissioner Smith said that in regards to Verizon's comments, her position is that if the Company wants information kept confidential, it knows the drill and can do that and there is no reason to give up front confidentiality to anything Verizon might choose to file under 7 and 8. She said she therefore didn't think any change is required based on Verizon's comments. Regarding Qwest's comments regarding item 4, she said she wondered if the Commission should add the word "network" so it says,"State the network transmission rate in bits per second…." She said she has no objections to the two changes that the Staff has inserted. She said it seems to her that #5 would just be a clarification because if you're asking people to list brands, manufacturer and model numbers, they would certainly have to list the equipment. She suggested requiring a specific list of equipment including the brand, manufacturer, and model number. She made a motion to reissue the proposed Order as a final Order.

Commissioner Kjellander added to the motion by noting the inclusion of the changes to items 4 and 5 and the augmentation to item 1. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.

Scott Woodbury's July 6, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Rates, Terms and Conditions of Service for Potlatch—Avista Opposition to ICIP Intervention; Monsanto Petition for Intervention/Avista Opposition. Case No. AVU-E-01-5.

Mr. Woodbury reviewed the issues regarding intervention in the case. Commissioner Hansen said he believed both the ICIP and Monsanto have a substantial interest in the subject matter of the proceedings. He said the outcome of the proceedings could result in the Commission establishing a precedent that could have an effect on these two groups, so they should be allowed to intervene. He made a motion to grant both the parties intervention in the case and also issue additional notice of scheduling.

Commissioner Smith said she concurs heartily with Commissioner Hansen's motion. She said this is a case, that based on the Commission's understanding and reading of state law, will impact large customers of other utilities. She said more importantly, the Commission ought to retain its longstanding policy of liberal intervention, provided the issues are not broadened and the case is not delayed. She stated she didn't see any delay of the proceeding or broadening of the issues by granting these interventions. She said she had one problem with the scheduling, however. She stated she knows we try to hold hearings in the service area of the utility but that is generally for the convenience for the customers who might attend the hearings. She noted Potlatch's attorneys are not located in Lewiston, and there are no members of the public who would benefit from participating in the hearing, so she suggested the hearing could more conveniently and economically be held in Boise.

Commissioner Hansen noted that the hearings regarding Scottish Power were held in Boise and the parties were able to participate without any problems, so he would be in favor of the Boise location, too.

Commissioner Kjellander stated that the issue about where to hold the hearings wasn't part of the motion, and the details could be worked out later.

A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.

The only other item on the agenda was item 7 under FULLY SUBMITTED MATTERS, and Commissioner Kjellander stated the Commission would deliberate on it privately. He then adjourned the meeting.

Dated this _____ day of September, 2001.

___________________________________
COMMISSION SECRETARY
1

2