HomeMy WebLinkAbout20020508-min.docMINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
MAY 8, 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—12 on the CONSENT AGENDA. Commissioner Kjellander stated he would like to move item 3 to Matters in Progress if there were no objections. Commissioner Smith noted she would also like to move item 10 to Matters in Progress. There were no objections to moving the items, and there were no comments or discussion on any of the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the exclusion of items 3 and 10. A vote was taken and it carried unanimously.
The next order of business was MATTERS IN PROGRESS:
Carol Cooper’s May 2, 2002 Decision Memorandum re: Formal Complaint of Ralph Stuart.
Beverly Barker reviewed the Decision Memo and asked the Commissioners if they wanted to accept the formal complaint and if so issue a Summons to Idaho Power so the company can issue a response to the Complaint. Commissioner Smith asked if the customer was satisfied with the Staff’s response to the investigation. Ms. Barker replied that he is not. Commissioner Smith said then we ought to go forward with the formal complaint and she so moved.
Commissioner Kjellander asked if there was any contact with the customer regarding any conservation measures he may have implemented that could have caused the usage to be less than the estimated amount. Ms. Barker replied that there were a number of discussions with the customer and in fact the company did reduce the estimate it made initially on the basis of those discussions.
There was no further discussion on the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
Scott Woodbury’s May 2, 2002 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. UWI-W-02-2 (United Water), Application to Amend Certificate, Lockwood Subdivision (Eagle Area).
Mr. Woodbury reviewed his Decision Memo. Mr. Woodbury stated he had spoken with Robert DeShazo of Eagle Water Company regarding United Water’s filing and he was aware of it. Mr. Woodbury said he advised Mr. DeShazo that Staff was recommending that the matter be processed pursuant to Modified Procedure and that Eagle Water would have an opportunity to file comments. He said Mr. DeShazo did not voice any opposition to the use of Modified Procedure.
Commissioner Smith said she thought Eagle Water and United Water were engaged in settlement discussions that might lead to an agreement as to who should serve what part of the buffer zone.
Mr. Woodbury replied that United Water’s application was filed over the issue of attempting to extend facilities through the buffer zone to serve an area located within United Water’s certificated area.
Commissioner Smith asked why we would send it out on Modified Procedure to deal with this little piece of the buffer zone if the two companies are now engaged in negotiations that might ultimately and quickly resolve the issue of who should serve all of the buffer zone. Mr. Woodbury responded that the other matter was set for a Show Cause hearing but it was vacated pursuant to a Stipulation filed between Eagle Water and United Water. He said the parties met but he didn’t know if they discussed who should serve within the buffer zone. He said there is a developer who wants the Commission to address who should serve him, and the Commission told him that was not a matter before us, but United Water spoke to him after the meeting and this filing was the result. He said he didn’t have the answer as to whether it will be dealt with by the parties in their negotiations.
Commissioner Smith made a motion to put the matter out on Modified Procedure with a shortened comment period because the developer is waiting and we are standing between him and his project. She said if the companies are already talking about settling these matters they can get it done before the comment period ends and should be able to present a Stipulation to the Commission in a couple of days. There was no further discussion. A vote was taken and it carried unanimously.
Bob Smith’s May 6, 2002 Decision Memorandum re: GNR-W-01-1, Ponderosa Terrace Estates, Emergency Interim Action.
Mr. Smith reviewed his Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Kjellander asked if any of the proposed options have been presented to the customers, given the fact the company hasn’t been sending bills so there wouldn’t be any communication with the customers via bill stuffers. He asked if the customers had any idea there is a proposal on the table that would increase, and in fact double in some cases, the rates they are paying today. Mr. Smith replied that neither the company nor the customers are aware of the Decision Memorandum because Staff had been working on it diligently for the last couple of days and had just finalized it. Commissioner Kjellander said he was reluctant to impose a rate increase on customers without them having any knowledge or an opportunity to at least comment on it. He said that he is concerned that a rate increase has already been imposed but the customers still aren’t getting any bills, so he sees problems all over the board. He asked if the issues with the Certificate had been resolved and if the company even has a Certificate. Mr. Smith replied that a Certificate has been issued. Commissioner Kjellander asked Mr. Smith if he had any recommendations as to what approach could be taken to ensure the customers receive the information so it doesn’t come as a surprise to them and how we can ensure some kind of billing gets put in place.
Commissioner Smith said it seemed to her we put the $20 rate in place because the company refused to provide the needed information. She asked what the company was charging before that. Mr. Smith said he recalled they were charging permanent customers or residents about $18 per month and the non-resident customers about $12 per month. Commissioner Smith said she is confused as to why he thinks his revenue is down 80-90 percent when we implemented a $20 rate. Commissioner Kjellander said he recalled the company imposed a $65 increase without telling anyone.
Commissioner Smith said Option C, which would be to issue another Order directing the owners to comply with all previous orders of the Commission, seemed to be ineffective. She said it might work in the context of having that Order be part of a Notice of Modified Procedure on the rates that are proposed in Option 3, and that way the customers would be given notice, and we could individually serve them with the Notice. She said the Notice would inform them the rates would be imposed June 1st, and we would give them an opportunity to comment, and at the same time we would tell the company it has to bill the customers for December through May at $20 per month so they can get current. She said the new rates will be implemented based on the financial information the company finally provided. She said if we don’t get any more responses from the company, our next choice is to create a record to take to District Court.
Mr. Smith said Staff has in mind noticing this as a rate to be effective June 1, with the Commission taking comment from the company and customers. He said we have a fairly complete customer list and we can mail the notice to all the customers on the system as well as to the company.
Mr. Lobb said he has talked to the owner of the water system and he is concerned about maintenance and service. He said they have met face to face with Mr. Cobott and have talked to him over the phone. Mr. Lobb said he is concerned that the process we go through will result in discontinuation of service. He said Mr. Cobott has indicated to him that he can’t pay his power bill, the power will be shut off, and he is going to allow that to occur. Mr. Lobb said Mr. Cobott doesn’t want to go to jail but he doesn’t feel he has any other choice. Mr. Lobb said he is more concerned about the customers and he has told Mr. Cobott we will work with him to try to proceed as quickly as possible on his issues so he can maintain service and pay his bills while keeping service on for the customers. Mr. Lobb said that is one of the reasons the Staff recommended we increase the rates subject to refund in order to allow him to pay his bills, maintain service, and still allow a comment period. He said that is why Staff believes the recommendation is appropriate.
Commissioner Kjellander said if we’re looking at “subject to refund” and a June 1st target for implementation with a comment period prior to that, and if the Commission would also have the option to adjust the rate anytime prior to June 1st, then he could accept it. Mr. Smith replied that it is always the Commission’s option to adjust a rate. Commissioner Kjellander said that given that fact, he would like to make his previous comments into a motion. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
Dan Graves’ May 6, 2002 Decision Memorandum re: Formal Complaint of James H. Hunt.
Mr. Graves reviewed his Decision Memo. Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to approve Staff’s recommendation to postpone a decision in the matter. A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
Don Howell’s May 3, 2002 Decision Memorandum re: Reconsideration Regarding Intermountain Gas’s Request for a Rule Exemption. Case No. INT-G-02-1.
Mr. Howell reviewed his Decision Memorandum. Commissioner Smith asked if the Company has any proposal or suggestion or sees any similar problems to what the Staff has raised. Mike Huntington, Vice President of Marketing and External Affairs for Intermountain Gas, responded that Intermountain Gas was not aware the Commission had not distributed notification to the official notification list, but the Company’s efforts before and during the process included working with all the jurisdictions that would be affected by a Commission order regarding their application for exemption from Rule 102. He said as the Company became aware of the Petitions for Reconsideration, it met with the cities of Boise, Pocatello and Nampa as well as Ken Harward and Debbie Bloom of the Association of Idaho Cities, who work on behalf of their membership to address concerns that have been raised. He stated the issues include the performance of after-hour and weekend inspections as well as the issue noted by Staff of the impact of the adoption of the international codes as legislated by House Bill 586. He said the merits of one code versus another should be a matter discussed by the cities as they go through the process of deciding whether or not to adopt the codes in their jurisdictions, and after their decisions are made, a separate action should be initiated through the normal rule-making process to address the PUC’s rules that may be affected by the cities’ decisions. He stated this process allows for the inclusion of all utilities regulated by the PUC as well as all the jurisdictions that are involved, and that process should be a separate matter that does not preclude the Commission from allowing Intermountain Gas to implement the exemption from Rule 102. Mr. Huntington said that foregoing redundant inspections allows the customers to receive expedited service from their heating contractor and streamlines the inspection approval process for the heating dealers.
Commissioner Kjellander noted that representatives of the Association of Idaho Cities were present and he asked them if they had talked to their membership about discussions with Intermountain Gas. Ken Harward of the Association of Idaho Cities said they had corresponded with their cities and totally agreed with the statement made by Mr. Huntington. Commissioner Kjellander asked him if they also concurred that there should be a separate proceeding on a going forward basis. Mr. Harward replied that they thought the international code issue is separate from the request that Intermountain Gas has before the Commission.
Commissioner Smith said the PUC can re-open an order or a case at any time so she didn’t think we needed to do reconsideration of our own motion and the other Petitions have been withdrawn, and now that the parties are aware of the concerns with the different codes they have the ability to work on it and propose a solution or a change in our rules after they have concluded their investigations and discussions. She said she would allow the withdrawal of the Petitions for Reconsideration and not reconsider on the Commission’s own motion.
Commissioner Kjellander said he supports the motion. He also apologized for the apparent lack of notification to the appropriate parties and said it was an oversight we won’t experience in the future. He said he was glad Staff recognized the mistake and attempted to fix it. He stated he also appreciated that the cities are working with the utilities and apologized to the cities on behalf of the Commission for the lack of notice.
A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
Scott Woodbury’s May 6, 2002 Decision Memorandum re: Case No IPC-E-01-42 (Idaho Power), Power Supply Contract—Ida West/Garnet Energy, Motion to Vacate and Reschedule.
Mr. Woodbury reviewed his Decision Memorandum and advised the Commission that Idaho Power had made a filing the previous day requesting the matter be scheduled for oral argument. He said time is available on the Commission’s calendar on Friday at 10:00 a.m.
Commissioner Hansen said that after reviewing the requests he felt it is reasonable to grant the delay, although he didn’t know if it needed to be extended a full 90 days. He said he agreed the discovery process has been slower than anticipated and the release of the draft of the 2002 IRP is essential, so he would support granting the delay.
Commissioner Kjellander said he is not ready to make the decision and would like an opportunity for oral argument in order to hear from all parties with regard to the delay and provide as much due process as might be necessary. He made a motion to have an oral argument scheduled for Friday, May 10th at 10:00 a.m. so the parties can air their concerns about the motion to delay the hearing date.
Commissioner Hansen said he wasn’t aware there had been a request for oral argument but he could support the motion. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
Commissioner Kjellander said the next order of business was under FULLY SUBMITTED MATTERS but rather than deliberating in private, the Commission would consider it publicly since the parties were present.
Lisa Nordstrom’s May 6, 2002 Decision Memorandum re: In the Matter of Capitol Water Corporation’s Application for a Temporary Surcharge, a Declaration of Prudency, and Authority to Incur Debt to Fund System Improvements. Case No. CAP-W-02-1.
Ms. Nordstrom reviewed her Decision Memo and stated there was some concern if the public had received notice. She said they did receive bill stuffers and the Commission issued a press release that was picked up by the local paper. She said the Commission did not receive any written comments from the public but there was one phone call that was taken by Staff and that customer felt the Company should have shown the flat, residential consumer percentage increase in its bill stuffer; however, the commenter still thought the rates were reasonable and did not complain about the cost even with the increase because it was better than what he would pay if he were a United Water customer. She said that was the only public input received other than Staff’s comments. She said the Company filed a reply comment asking that the flat, consumer rate be $2.10 rather than $2.07 for the sake of even accounting.
Commissioner Smith made a motion to approve Capitol Water’s application, adopting the Staff’s recommendations as far as reporting and keeping its books and records in order, and to grant the Company’s request that we impose the $3.10 flat residential surcharge because it would be much easier to add tens rather than sevens.
There was no discussion on the motion. A vote was taken and it carried unanimously.
Ms. Nordstrom asked if the Commission also approved the issuance proposed in that case, and Commissioner Smith confirmed that it did.
There was no further business before the Commission, and Commissioner Kjellander adjourned the meeting.
DATE this _____ day of May, 2002.
___________________________________
COMMISSION SECRETARY
6