HomeMy WebLinkAbout20020606-min.docMINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
JUNE 6, 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. Commissioner Kjellander stated he would like to move item 2 on the Consent Agenda to Matters in Progress. Commissioner Smith stated she had several questions regarding item 1, noting that Staff was recommending disapproval of a matter in a tariff advice, and our customary procedure is to give the company an opportunity to respond. She asked if the company was aware of Staff’s recommendation and if it had been given the opportunity to respond. She said that regarding item 6, she was concerned that there didn’t appear to be a recommendation by Staff in the Decision Memo that could be clearly adopted by Commission approval. She said she had been informed, however, Staff’s recommendation is to approve the requested extension for the filing deadline.
In response to Commissioner Smith’s question regarding item 1, Dan Graves said he would like to move the item to Matters in Progress where it could be discussed more fully. There were no objections. Commissioner Smith moved for approval of items 3, 4, 5, 6, with the understanding that approval of item 6 means approving Staff’s recommendation for an extension of the filing deadline. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
The next order of business was MATTERS IN PROGRESS:
Dan Graves’s June 4, 2002 Decision Memorandum re: Pacificorp (dba Utah Power and Light Company) Advice Filing No. 02-04 Regarding Rule 1—General Provisions, Rule 3—Electric Service Agreements, and Schedule 300—Regulation Changes.
Mr. Graves reviewed his Decision Memorandum. He stated that Staff did not agree with the company’s proposal concerning the General Provisions of Rule 1. He stated they are continuing to work with the company on that rule. He said they are in agreement with the company regarding Rule 3, and would like it to be approved and become effective June 14th. He said Staff would like to informally suspend a decision on Rule 1 until such time as they can reach some sort of agreement with the company. Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to approve Rule 3 and informally suspend Rule 1 in order to allow Staff enough time to further work out the details with the company. A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
Dave Schunke’s June 4, 2002 Decision Memorandum re: PacifiCorp’s Revised Letter for Farmers to Certify that They Are Eligible for BPA Credit.
Mr. Schunke reviewed his Decision Memorandum. He stated that Staff has requested a small change to the wording in the company’s introductory paragraph of the revised form. He said the form as submitted by the company states, “Failure to provide the requested information may result in denial of the credit,” but Staff has asked they add the language to state, “Failure to return the completed form or provide the requested information may result in denial of the credit.” He said the reason that Staff has asked for that emphasis is because in the past when customers have not returned the form they haven’t lost their BPA credit, but it is now the company’s intent to enforce the language or customers will lose the credit. He said Staff wants to emphasize that fact to the customers so they don’t inadvertently lose their credits, and the company supports this small change. He said staff recommends approval of the changes in Schedule 34.
Commissioner Hansen asked if the revisions will affect the current credit farmers are receiving. Mr. Schunke replied that BPA is asking that the form be submitted for this season, and that is why the company wants to move so quickly. He said BPA will be auditing the eligibility of the customers and the company emphasizes that if there are customers who are determined to be ineligible, the customer is liable for any overpayments.
Commissioner Smith made a motion for approval of Pacificorp’s requested changes to the certification form with the changes recommended by Staff, and that it be done immediately. A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
Don Howell’s June 4, 2002 Decision Memorandum re: St. Maries River Railroad’s Objection to Its 2002 Regulatory Fee. Case No. SMR-R-02-1.
Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to vacate the hearing and lower the assessment for the St. Maries River Railroad based on the Decision Memorandum prepared by Mr. Howell. Commissioner Hansen added that the Commission will probably need to seek the Board of Examiner’s approval for the $1,290.33 to St. Maries. With that caveat, a vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
John Hammond’s June 4, 2002 Decision Memorandum re: In the Matter of the St. Onges’ Petition for Reconsideration of the Commission’s Dismissal of Their Formal Complaint Against Qwest. Case No. QWE-T-01-25.
Mr. Hammond reviewed his Decision Memorandum. Karissa St. Onge was present via teleconferencing and stated that some of the issues had been resolved since they filed their Petition for Reconsideration. She said one of their main concerns in the Petition for Reconsideration was that the company had billed them for completion for the last half of the construction charges, which they paid in February. She said the company just started burying the cable last week, however, and at the time they were notified the complaint was being dismissed, they had paid the construction charges but the job had not been completed. She stated Qwest was still in the process of burying the cable, but the box from which they are served has cable over 40 years old, and they are not sure there is enough there to provide the service for the three homes that are going in. She said they have been assigned a 924 exchange number from Craigmont, and she is in the process of getting signatures on a petition to get EAS. Mr. Hammond explained that the issues of burying the cable and the age of the cable falls within the scope of her complaint, but the EAS issue did not. He said that Qwest was present and could give an update.
Commissioner Kjellander asked Mrs. St. Onge if she was satisfied that Qwest would be completing the burying of the cable. She said Qwest had followed through on the original complaint in the previous week, was bringing in new cable, and was in the process of burying it, so she was satisfied. She said she had been concerned that the temporary cable had been run over by heavy equipment and there would be problems with it if they went ahead and used it. She stated that it had taken three and a half years to get to where they are now with Qwest, and she didn’t want to dismiss the complaint until she knew things were moving. Commissioner Kjellander asked her if she was comfortable now in dismissing the Petition for Reconsideration with the understanding that the remaining issues would be pursued informally. She confirmed that she would be comfortable.
John Souba of Qwest stated he was delighted that Ms. St. Onge was willing to resolve the complaint on an informal basis, working with Commission Staff and the company. He said Qwest provided her service last December on a temporary basis and had to lay the cable on the snow because the ground was frozen. He said the county would not let them on the ground to bury the cable because the ground was too soggy until just recently. He stated that Qwest did a detailed review of the exchange boundary maps for the Lapwai and Craigmont exchanges, and she was in fact physically located in the Craigmont exchange, which explains why she has a 924 prefix.
Commissioner Kjellander thanked Mrs. St. Onge for participating, and he made a motion to deny the Petition for Reconsideration with the request that Staff pursue the other issues in an informal process. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
John Hammond’s June 4, 2002 Decision Memorandum re: Stipulation and Settlement Agreement—Investigation into the Load Reduction Rates Paid by Idaho Power to FMC Corporation/Astaris, LLC. Case No. IPC-E-01-43.
Commissioner Kjellander confirmed that Andrea Utecht from FMC and Randy Budge on behalf of the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association were participating by telephone bridge. John Hammond reviewed his Decision Memo. He stated that the agreement had been signed by all parties and asked that it be approved based on the written record before the Commission.
Commissioner Smith stated that having had a hearing on the matter, along with weeks working toward anticipated settlement, the Commission could approve the agreement without further public comment or process. She said there has been plenty of process on the issue and she was amenable to approving the stipulation as filed without any further process, given the fact that all parties have signed. Commissioner Kjellander said since all parties have signed, he didn’t see any reason to delay approval of the stipulation. He thanked the parties for the numerous hours that went into resolving a difficult situation. He made a motion for approval of the stipulation. A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
Scott Woodbury’s June 4, 2002 Decision Memorandum re: Affiliate Contract with Garnet Energy LLC. Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum. Case No. IPC-E-01-42.
Commissioner Smith stated she had discussed with Mr. Woodbury her belief that item 10, which involves the issuance of a subpoena in an active case, need not be on the agenda. There were no objections to removing it from the agenda.
Scott Woodbury’s June 4, 2002 Decision Memorandum re: Case No. PAC-E-01-16 (PacifiCorp) Monsanto Electric Service Agreement Proposed Scheduling.
Mr. Woodbury reviewed his Decision Memo. There were no questions or comments. Commissioner Kjellander made a motion to approve the proposed scheduling dates outlined in the Decision Memo, issue an Amended Notice of Application identifying cost-of-service as an issue in this docket, and establish a period for intervention. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
Scott Woodbury’s June 4, 2002 Decision Memorandum re: Investigation—Armstrong Park Water. Case No. GNR-W-01-02.
Mr. Woodbury reviewed his Decision Memo. Commissioner Smith asked if Staff had investigated every way possible not to have this be a regulated water company. Mr. Woodbury replied that Staff attempted to do so and that is why the case has been protracted for a year and a half. He said the city does not wish to accept the company unless there are some upgrades in the facilities, and DCI has floated a price but the parties aren’t in agreement and are now involved in litigation as to who owns the distribution system. He said things won’t be resolved anytime soon unless the Commission asserts some jurisdiction. Commissioner Smith confirmed the Commission would be asserting jurisdiction over Development Concepts, Inc., a wholesale provider of water. Mr. Woodbury confirmed DCI purchases water at a wholesale rate from the city but re-prices it at a retail rate to the customers, and the customers have no say as to what the mark-up is. Commissioner Smith confirmed that DCI actually bills the customers, not the homeowners association. She asked if DCI owns the distribution system. Mr. Woodbury replied that initially DCI maintained that it had quit-claimed the distribution system to the homeowners association, and all DCI owned was the pump and piping up to the reservoir, but DCI’s attorney reviewed the matter and they are now of the position that there was not a valid conveyance and the homeowners association had never accepted the conveyance. He stated the homeowners association is now asserting ownership of the entire system. Commissioner Smith confirmed that when the Commission assumes jurisdiction, it will be over the system, whoever the owner turns out to be. Mr. Woodbury replied that our jurisdiction will be over DCI and the homeowners association is not claiming any ownership rights of the pump and piping up to the reservoir. He said if it were a homeowners association we would definitely bow out
Commissioner Kjellander asked if there would be any wisdom in waiting to determine what exactly or who we are regulating and if it would make sense to wait for the court’s decision so when we do issue a certificate we will clearly know. Mr. Woodbury stated that if we wait, customers will still have no forum for addressing grievances that might come up during the summer season. Mr. Kjellander made a motion to assert jurisdiction, issue a certificate, and establish current rates as the interim rates. A vote was taken on the motion and it carried unanimously.
Weldon Stutzman’s June 3, 2002 Decision Memorandum re: Concluding Decision in Qwest’s Section 271 Case. Case No. USW-T-00-3.
Commissioner Kjellander stated he would like to move item 13 under the category of Fully Submitted Matters and deliberate on it privately.
There was no further business and Commissioner Kjellander adjourned the meeting.
DATE this ______ day of June, 2002.
___________________________________
COMMISSION SECRETARY
5