20011217.min.doc

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
DECEMBER 17, 2001 – 1:30 P.M.

In attendance were Commissioners Paul Kjellander and Dennis Hansen. (Commissioner Smith was excused.)

Commissioner Kjellander called the meeting to order. The first order of business was approval of items 1-11 on the CONSENT AGENDA. Commissioner Kjellander asked if there were any comments or questions on any of the items. There were none, and the Consent Agenda was approved.

The next order of business was MATTERS IN PROGRESS:

12. Don Howell’s December 14, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: Avista Communications and XO Idaho Petition for Declaratory Relief. Case No. GNR-T-01-23.

Mr. Howell reviewed his Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Hansen moved to approve Staff’s recommendation.

Commissioner Kjellander asked if the rates for the customers would stay the same. Mr. Howell replied the rates would stay the same but there was a caveat in that the Avista rates as well as the bundling of services would remain the same and be adopted by XO Idaho for a period of no less than 90 days. During that time, customers would have an opportunity to review what the new rates would be and have the opportunity to seek another carrier. Commissioner Kjellander asked if this information would be made clear to the customers. Mr. Howell replied that the letter being sent to the customers contained the information in a bolded paragraph. Commissioner Kjellander asked how customers would be notified if rates are going to go up. Mr. Howell said that under our normal Title 62 rules, if XO Idaho wants to increase rates, it must give affected customers at least 10 days notice.

There was no further discussion. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.

13. John Hammond’s December 14, 2001 Decision Memorandum re: In the Matter of the Application of PacifiCorp, dba Utah Power and Light Company, for Approval of Interim Provisions for the Supply of Electric Service to Monsanto Company. Case No. PAC-E-01-16.

Mr. Hammond reviewed his Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Hansen commented that Monsanto’s contract with Pacificorp and the rates established therein remain in full force and effect until such time as the federal court establishes the termination date. He said that he didn’t think there was sufficient evidence in the Application to justify implementing the requested interim rate and he didn’t think the Commission had an adequate record to make a decision. He stated he didn’t have a problem beginning a process to gather information needed and set a hearing schedule because it will probably need to be done, but he thought the Commission should let the court make its decision before getting involved with the Application.

Commissioner Kjellander said he agreed with Commissioner Hansen and at this point trying to establish some type of interim rate could be an exercise in futility given the fact that the court has control over the issue right now and that is where it belongs. Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to suspend the Application and schedule the matter for development of a record by evidentiary hearing and a prehearing conference, with the actual going forward rate to be established after the court has ruled as to when the contract actually expires. Mr. Hammond noted that if the court rules in favor of Monsanto, the rate going forward will be the rate specified in the contract. Commissioner Kjellander stated that the court’s decision may alter our time table and our plans, which we can deal with at the appropriate time and place. He asked Mr. Hammond if the bases are covered with the motion or if anything needed to be added to it. Mr. Hammond replied that the only other thing to consider was whether or not Mr. Budge’s motion has been addressed—i.e. whether the suspension addresses his request for a stay of the Application, and if that is the case, if he would withdraw his motion. Commissioner Kjellander said that from the way he is looking at the motion, the rate that would be charged as of January 1 would be the same rate they are paying today, which should sufficiently deal with that issue.

Commissioner Hansen stated that as he understands the motion, we are dismissing Monsanto’s Motion to Deny but we are granting a decision to suspend the Application. Commissioner Kjellander agreed. Mr. Hammond said he wasn’t sure what Mr. Budge felt as to the technicalities of the motion and whether it was granted in part or not. He said what he was getting at is the suspension and if the Commission is sticking with the rate in the contract that exists now, then essentially it grants him the relief he was seeking, although possibly not the dismissal, but the alternative. Commissioner Kjellander said that if there needs to be clarification after the order is issued, then any party associated with the case can ask for clarification.

Mr. Budge, who was participating via teleconference call, responded that he agreed with Commissioner Kjellander. He said the ruling that suspends the Application is essentially a stay of further action on the Application, which was all they wanted. He said he thought it was important that the Commission decided that the existing rate remains in effect until the court has ruled, which eliminates all of their concerns and gives them a basis on which to move forward. He said he didn’t think anything further needed to be done to deal with their motion because the stay had been given.

There were no further comments or questions. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.

There were no other items on the agenda and Commissioner Kjellander adjourned the meeting.

DATED this _____ day of December, 2001.

_______________________________________
COMMISSION SECRETARY