20020308Decision Memo.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
JEAN JEWELL
RON LAW
LOU ANN WESTERFIELD
LYNN ANDERSON
BUD BARTHLOME
RANDY LOBB
DAVE SCHUNKE
BEV BARKER
TONYA CLARK
GENE FADNESS
WORKING FILE
FROM:
DATE:
MARCH 8, 2002 RE: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS’S PETITION FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE COMMISSION’S GAS SERVICE RULE 102; CASE NO. INT-G-02-1

On January 11, 2002, Intermountain Gas filed a Petition with the Commission seeking an exemption from the Commission’s Gas Service Rule 102. IDAPA 31.31.01.102. In particular, Rule 102 requires all gas corporations to inspect a customer’s installation of a gas appliance before connecting the meter. In its Petition, Intermountain Gas asserts that Rule 102 is inconsistent with Rule 202 and 203 of the Commission’s Safety and Accident Reporting Rules, IDAPA 31.11.01.202 and 203. These latter safety rules allow gas utilities to forego inspecting customer installations that “[h]ave been inspected and approved by authorized agencies.…” Id. On January 25, 2002, the Commission issued a Notice of Modified Procedure requesting comments concerning Intermountain Gas’s Petition.
THE PETITION
The Company maintains in its Petition that it desires to eliminate redundant customer installation inspections “beyond our meter.” Petition at 2, § I. The Company insists that Gas Rule 102 compels duplicate inspections by both an authorized inspection agency (e.g., a city/county building department) and the utility. The Company states that by eliminating the redundant inspections in Rule 102, “Intermountain will be improving our customers’ ability to receive expedited service from their heating contractor and the heating dealer will need inspection approval from only one authorized agency [and not the utility] thereby streamlining the inspection process.” Petition at I.
STAFF COMMENTS
The only person to submit comments was the Commission Staff. The Staff recommended that Intermountain Gas’s request be approved “with the recognition that the Company is ultimately responsible for the quality of the [other agency’s] inspection and to see that safety codes are followed.” Staff Comments at 2. Staff also observed that the Commission had previously granted a waiver of Gas Rule 102 to Avista in August 1992. See Order No. 24507. That Order, however, emphasized that the Commission’s waiver did not relieve Avista’s obligation to see that safety codes were followed. Id.
After the Staff filed its comments, representatives of the Company and Staff met to discuss the Staff’s comments. In particular, the Company was concerned that even if the Commission approved the waiver request allowing other inspection agencies to perform the code inspections, the Company was, nonetheless, responsible for the quality of inspections. To address the Staff’s concern, the parties agreed to implement procedures to ensure that inspections conducted by governmental agencies meet adopted safety criteria.
On March 5, 2002, the Company submitted a proposal for the Commission’s consideration. The Company noted that the objective of agency inspections is to verify that the gas installations comply with the standards set forth in either the Uniform Mechanical Code or the National Gas Fuel Code as adopted by the Commission. In those instances where a city or county establishes an inspection requirement for gas installations, Intermountain Gas will determine whether the city or county has adopted the necessary safety codes. In addition, the Company will conduct redundant inspections of approximately 5% to ensure that the inspections have not overlooked any safety standard. After a city or county agency has assumed inspection responsibilities, Intermountain Gas will review the agency’s inspection program once every five years. A copy of the overview procedures is attached.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission grant Intermountain Gas a waiver of Gas Rule 102 thereby allowing other governmental agencies to conduct safety inspections on installed apparatus?
Does the Commission wish to adopt the parties’ proposal regarding Intermountain Gas’s periodic review of these inspection agencies for conformance to the Uniform Mechanical Code and the National Fuel Gas Code as adopted by the Commission?
Does the Commission wish to address the Staff’s comment that even with the waiver, Intermountain Gas will ultimately be responsible for the quality of the inspection and to see that adopted safety codes are followed?
Anything else?

Don Howell

Vld/M:INTG0201_dh2
Staff also suggested that a permanent change to Gas Rule 102 may be warranted once the legislative rules moratorium is lifted.

DECISION MEMORANDUM 3