Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20010730.min.docMINUTES OF DECISION MEETING JULY 30, 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 items 1-7 on the CONSENT AGENDA. There were no questions or comments and the Consent Agenda was approved. The next order of business was MATTERS IN PROGRESS: Scott Woodbury's July 26, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: PCA Surcharge. Case No. AVU-E-01-11. Mr. Woodbury reviewed his Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Kjellander asked if Staff and Intervenor testimony would still be due at the same time if the target date for the final order slips to the week of September 10-14. Mr. Woodbury said there would be a similar slip of one week for the Staff and Intervenor testimony, moving the due date from August 22nd to August 29th, and the Company's rebuttal testimony would be moved from August 28th to September 4th. Commissioner Smith said the other option was to give interim rate relief subject to refund and then take all the time needed to audit and do the hearing. Mr. Woodbury replied that is certainly an option but he hadn't discussed it with the Company and didn't know if that would provide the assurance their lenders require in order for the Company to go into the market and get additional monies to continue financing Coyote Springs. Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to suspend the proposed effective date, moving the schedule proposed by the Company back by one week beginning with the Staff and Intervenor testimony due dates. Commissioner Smith asked how long of a suspension period that includes, and she noted the standard period is 30 days plus five months. Commissioner Kjellander confirmed that the Commission could do it sooner and said 30 days should be the maximum. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously. Don Howell's July 27, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Idaho Power's Emergency Curtailment Plan (Tariff Rule J). Case No. IPC-E-01-20. Mr. Howell reviewed his Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Smith asked why the Staff believes it is necessary to put the case out for comment. Mr. Howell replied that one of the reasons for putting it out for comment would be to advise the public of the plans. He said people may want to know what region they are located in and they might want to ask the Company to put them on an e-mail advanced notice requirement—i.e. if time permits the Company can advise customers that circuits are going to go down. Commissioner Smith asked if he thought modified procedure is the best way to inform people about the details of the plan. Mr. Howell replied that it is a way to start, but if the Commission wanted to do something else, it could do public workshops or hearings. Commissioner Smith said she didn't see what asking for comments would contribute. Commissioner Kjellander said to the extent that this piece of the process is prolonged, what would that do if there is a need for curtailment between now and the end of the 28-day comment period, especially as we head into a peak period for Idaho Power 's customers. Mr. Howell replied that the Company's Rule J Curtailment Plan is currently in place, and this is an update to the existing plan that rolls in the other two regional curtailment plans. He said the Company would not be without its automatic safety devices to deal with things in a short-term emergency situation. Commissioner Kjellander asked if the Company could implement the updated program if there were any problems in the next few weeks. Mr. Howell said if the Commission is satisfied with the merits of the plan, using the criteria contained in Idaho Code § 61-532, the Commission could approve the plan and have it implemented immediately. Commissioner Hansen said he has a concern about the Company not exempting certain customers like hospitals, fire stations, and police from the plan. He said allowing a comment period would provide an opportunity for the customers to review it and make comments. He said that seeing what happened in California and seeing the confusion that existed and critiquing their plan afterwards, it would be valuable to have a comment period where people could make comments on the curtailment system, especially for the businesses like hospitals, police, and fire that are not exempt from being curtailed. He made a motion to issue a Notice of Application and Notice of Modified Procedure concerning the Company's curtailment plan and establish a 28-day comment period. Commissioner Smith commented that similar plans have been filed. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried. 10. Wayne Hart's July 25, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Petition for EAS Between Rural Telephone Company's Boise River Exchange and Centurytel's Bruneau and Grand View Exchanges. Mr. Hart reviewed his Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Hart what he meant when he said the petition was "premature." Mr. Hart replied that Staff felt it had looked at the issues recently enough. Commissioner Smith stated that the Commission hadn't looked at this particular route, and to her, "premature" meant early. She asked what the Commission was waiting for so the petition would no longer be premature. Mr. Hart said that one could say the petition was incomplete. Commissioner Smith commented that the petition was received June 15th, and she questioned why we couldn't put it in line to be considered in due course. Mr. Hart replied that is certainly an option the Commission can pursue. Commissioner Hansen said in the past we have gone into a lot of communities, giving people the opportunity to try for EAS, and at times the Commission's investigations have found there were communities of interest when initially we thought there weren't any. He said since the people have put forth a petition, we should gather the data, move forward, and give them the opportunity to have their day in front of the Commission. He said after the data is gathered, the Commission can then make a decision as to whether or not it's in the best interests. Commissioner Smith moved that the petition requesting EAS between Boise River Exchange and Bruneau/Grand View be considered in due course, keeping in mind we have numerous other petitions ahead of it. Commissioner Hansen said he could support the motion but to him it doesn't mean put it in the closet forever and it should be addressed sooner or later. There was no further discussion. A vote was taken and motion carried unanimously. 11.Wayne Hart's July 27, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Formal Complaint of All Idaho Internet Service. Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to direct Staff to continue the informal discussions with the parties in an attempt to resolve the disputes and then report back to the Commission within 45 days. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously. Lisa Nordstrom's July 26, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Idaho Power Company's Objection to Intervenors' Comments and Petition for Clarification of the Record. Case Nos. IPC-E-01-7; IPC-E-01-11; and IPC-E-01-16. Don Howell reviewed the Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Hansen said he is concerned about limiting the evidence, and he would rather interpret quite widely what intervenors can submit as evidence rather than too narrowly. He said there is a huge overlap in the two cases and completely separating them could result in too narrow of a focus for a good decision. He stated that as we get into the hearing, it is something the Commission can address if it's out of line. He said he would prefer to allow the intervenors to have a little more latitude in what they submit. Commissioner Smith asked which case Staff was referring to when asking if the Comments and Declaration should be excluded. Mr. Howell replied that "this case" refers to the IPC-E-01-7/11 case. Mr. Howell explained that the two cases were combined and comprise the 2000-2001 PCA case. Commissioner Smith asked Bart Kline of Idaho Power if that is how he sees the case. Mr. Kline responded that the motion from Idaho Rivers United was to take some of the information that had been filed in the IPC-E-01-7/11 case and put it into the IPC-E-01-16 case, and that is the objection that the Company brought to the Commission. He said the Company objects to moving it out of the IPC-E-01-7/11 case and moving it to the IPC-E-01-16 case without making it testimony and exhibits and without making a witness available to cross examine in the IPC-E-01-16 case. He said the second part of their request is to establish what is the record in the IPC-E-01-7/11 case, and at the time the Company filed the motion objecting to moving things into the IPC-E-01-16 case, the Company didn't know whether Idaho Rivers United was going to file anything in the 7/11 case. He said it sounds like they subsequently did not file anything in that case, even though they had time to do so. Commissioner Smith stated she thought they did file in the 7/11 case. Mr. Kline said in the portion of the case where modified procedure was being used, they filed some comments and a Declaration of Tony Jones, then after the modified procedure portion was concluded and moved into the evidentiary portion on the remaining $59 million, that's when the Commission said it wanted testimony and exhibits filed, not comments, for those who wanted to participate. Commissioner Smith asked if there is a schedule for the IPC-E-01-16 case, and Mr. Kline replied that it is the same schedule as the IPC-E-01-7/11 case. He noted that the Company sees the 7/11 and 16 cases as being very separate and distinct with separate and distinct records, and they feel it is very important to maintain that distinction. Commissioner Hansen asked Mr. Kline if there wasn't a huge overlap between the two cases. Mr. Kline replied that he didn't think there is an overlap and that there are issues that are easily divisible. He said IPC-E-01-7/11 is essentially the historic portion of the PCA case, and the IPC-E-01-16 case deals prospectively with the relationship between IES and Idaho Power and with resource planning, so there's a very clear distinction between the issues to be considered. Commissioner Hansen asked if both cases involve how Idaho Power conducted itself in the past as well as how it is going to conduct itself in the future. Mr. Kline said in the 7-11/PCA case, the issues are how Idaho Power transacted its business. He said in that case, there was no affiliate—it was all Idaho Power—which is an important thing to remember. He said as far as the Company is concerned, it will be looking historically at the orders the Commission had in place, and the Company believes it followed those orders, and then that will be the decision the Commission will have to make in the 7/11 portion of the case. Mr. Kline said that in the 16 portion of the case, the Commission will have to make a decision as to whether or not going forward the things that were in place between IES or IE, which is now the separate affiliate, and Idaho Power should be transacted. He said with these distinctions in mind, the Company has set up its testimony and filed its direct case, and it didn't seem to them there was that much difficulty in separating the two cases. Commissioner Kjellander said from what he read in the memo and from where it stands right now, there seemed to be some legitimate confusion. He asked Mr. Howell for clarification. Mr. Howell confirmed that it is his interpretation that the intervenors want to take the comments filed during modified procedure, phase one, of the 7/11 cases and introduce them in the 16 case, which looks at what to do about the relationship between Idaho Power and its affiliate IE, or IES at the time. Commissioner Hansen stated that he thinks the cases overlap and it's important that we interpret widely what intervenors can submit as evidence, especially in these cases. He made a motion to deny Idaho Power's request that the intervenors' comments of Tony Jones be excluded from the record in this case. Commissioner Smith stated she will vote against the motion because allowing the comments to be part of the IPC-E-01-16 case will cause confusion. She suggested that the filing could be treated as any correspondence that the Commission receives in any case in that it would not be part of the record but would be circulated and be in the file, and the Commission would weight it accordingly. She said the Commission set up a procedure where the case was to be processed by use of prefiled testimony and exhibits, and the commenters knew that was to be the procedure, based on their footnote. She stated that causing the comments to become part of the record creates a procedural confusion in the case and she isn't sure how to resolve that. Commissioner Kjellander asked if this was the same group who had said their plans on the remaining piece were to take a small, almost inactive role in the entire proceeding. Mr. Kline noted there is separate case—IPC-E-01-13—just to deal with DSM. He said he knew that is the area where they wanted to concentrate their efforts, and Idaho Rivers United can make their points in that case. A vote was taken on the motion but it did not carry. Commissioner Kjellander made a second motion to grant Idaho Power's request that the intervenors' July 16, 2001 comments and declaration of Tony Jones be excluded from the record in the IPC-E-01-16 case. Commissioner Smith asked if the motion included taking filed material into consideration, similar to the way correspondence is handled. Commissioner Kjellander stated that if it has been received already in the building in reference to the case, the answer was "yes." A vote was taken on the motion and it carried with Commissioner Hansen voting against it. Mr. Howell pointed out that there was still an item on the table regarding Idaho Power's request to clarify the record in Case Nos. IPC-E-01-7 and -11. Mr. Howell stated the Company wanted to separate all the comments received under modified procedure during the first phase of the 7/11 case, and on a going forward basis deal with the evidentiary record relating to the $59 million. He said the Company is attempting to set a demarcation line between what is considered in the record in order to take into consideration the $59 million that is still at issue in the PCA case. Mr. Kline said that the way Idaho Power views the case, the Commission has handled the bulk of the case and the bulk of the rate relief within the PCA case by means of modified procedure and made a decision based on those comments in that record, but a portion of the total amount the Company asked for was deferred and the Commission decided to have an evidentiary proceeding on that. He said what the Company is trying to establish is what is the evidentiary record that will be used to make the decision on the $59 million. He stated the items outlined are what the Company believes should constitute the record in the evidentiary part of the 7/11 case so there are not all of those comments from the prior case that had to do with issues the Commission has already decided in the total case. He said they are trying to establish the evidentiary record in the event that the case ultimately has to go to the Idaho Supreme Court. Commissioner Smith stated that it confused her that the Company asked for orders to be in the record because the Commission can always take official notice of its orders and doesn't have to do anything special to do it. She stated that the Company is concerned that in the event of an appeal, it wanted to be clear as to what the record would be should the case go to the Supreme Court, but she didn't think it had to be decided now. Mr. Kline said it would let everyone know at the outset of the next phase of the case what the record is and what the issues are. He said he thought it would eliminate some confusion and eliminate any misunderstanding going forward. Commissioner Kjellander commented that the only confusion he had was in the Company's Petition for Clarification. He said he felt pretty clear in the way we were moving before. Commissioner Smith made a motion that the Commission grant the Petition for Clarification to the extent that the Commission provide further explanation of its previous order but that it's not necessary to outline a list of orders, some of which have not even been issued, as the record in the case. She said if the Company is confused as to what the Commission meant in its last order, the Commisson can certainly clarify that it intended the two issues that total $59 million to be the subject matter of the proceeding and evidence pertinent to those issues will be heard, but she didn't think order numbers needed to be listed. There was no further discussion on the motion. A vote was taken and it carried unanimously. The next order of business was RULEMAKING: Don Howell's July 27, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: The Commission's Adoption of the FCC's Slamming Rule. Case No. 31-4101-0101. Commissioner Kjellander moved that the Commission adopt its proposed rules as pending rules. There was no discussion on the motion. A vote was taken and it carried unanimously. John Hammond's July 27, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Proposed Revision of Operator Services and Pay Telephone Rules. Case No. 31-5101-0101. Commissioner Kjellander made a motion that the Commission adopt its proposed rules as pending rules. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously. Commissioner Kjellander stated the Commission would deliberate separately on the final item on the agenda, item 15, under FULLY SUBMITTED MATTERS. He then adjourned the meeting. Dated this _____ day of September, 2001. ____________________________________ COMMISSION SECRETARY 1 6