20020415-min.doc

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
APRIL 15, 2002
1:30 P.M.

In attendance were Commissioners Paul Kjellander, Dennis Hansen, and Marsha Smith.

Commissioner Kjellander called the meeting to order. The first order of business was approval of items 1-6 on the CONSENT AGENDA. There were no questions or comments. Commissioner Kjellander moved for approval of the Consent Agenda items. A vote was taken and the motion carried.

The next order of business was MATTERS IN PROGRESS:

Lisa Nordstrom’s April 12, 2002 Decision Memorandum re: In the Matter of the Application of Level 3 Communications, LLC to Amend Its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Provide Local Exchange and Interexchange Telecommunications Services Statewide. Case No. LEV-T-02-1.

Ms. Nordstrom reviewed her Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Smith said she thought the Staff’s analysis is probably correct in that certification is a different and separate process from interconnection and that in the certification process, Level 3 has met all the requirements necessary. She said if and when there is a dispute over interconnection then that might be the time to have a hearing. She moved for approval of the request of Level 3 to amendment its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. There was no discussion on the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.

Scott Woodbury’s April 12, 2002 Decision Memorandum re: Proposal to Recover Deferred Power Costs—Stipulation and Proposed Settlement. Discussion about procedure and written notice. Case No PAC-E-02-1. (No Decision Memo.)

Mr. Woodbury stated that this case has been called Pacificorp’s spread case, which is the company’s proposal to recover deferred power costs in southeastern Idaho. He noted the Commission had previously dealt with the BPA credit and following that, issued a Notice of Settlement Conference on February 5th and established a prehearing conference. He added that on February 26th, the Commission issued a Notice of Issue Identification and established proposed hearing dates—one in the instance if the settlement discussions proved successful and the other if they proved to be unsuccessful. He said that on April 11th, the parties filed a proposed Stipulation and Settlement. He said he was bringing the matter back before the Commission because in the Notice that was issued previously the Commission set a date of April 17th to submit the Settlement Agreement but the next Decision Meeting would not be until April 25th. He said that an Evidentiary Hearing had been set for May 8th at a location to be determined later. He said there had been a number of letters filed from state senators and representatives from southeast Idaho requesting that hearings be held in multiple locations, such as Montpelier, Preston, Firth and Rexburg. Mr. Woodbury suggested that since the Stipulation came in without supporting testimony, the company and Staff are attempting to work out a draft of testimony to support the Stipulation and establish a prefile deadline of April 26th. He asked the Commissioners if they thought the Commission should hold hearings and where they thought the hearings should be.

Commissioner Smith stated that it would be prudent and necessary to hold hearings on this Application. She made suggestions about dates and locations for the hearings, including a technical hearing.

Commissioner Kjellander stated there was never any intent not to have hearings. He said that workshops should also be held so more information could be provided to the ratepayers.

Commissioner Hansen suggested holding a hearing in Grace, which would be halfway between Preston and Montpelier.

Commissioner Kjellander suggested that the dates and locations be pinned down in an Order. He made a motion that the Commission issue an order that outlines some dates and locations for public hearings, workshops, and a technical hearing for this case.

Commissioner Hansen commented that regarding the supporting testimony, he hoped that the company would go back and address the issues the Commission identified in the prehearing conference—i.e. the justification of the Hunter outage, the possible curtailments, the determination of the recovery period, etc.

Commissioner Smith said that one of her concerns has been the readjustment of the irrigation rates so they are closer to costs of service. She said she has read through the stipulation and tariffs that were filed and still can’t determine if the rates are in line with the costs of service. She asked that there be a straight forward presentation of what current rates are and what the proposed rates are so that someone reading them can ferret out if there has been any movement toward conforming the rates closer to the cost of service.

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

Having no further business, Commissioner Kjellander adjourned the meeting.

DATED this _____ day of April, 2002.

__________________________________
COMMISSION SECRETARY

1