2000829_ws.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
MYRNA WALTERS
RON LAW
LOUANN WESTERFIELD
DON HOWELL
RANDY LOBB
DAVE SCHUNKE
JOE CUSICK
BILL EASTLAKE
WORKING FILE
FROM:
DATE:
AUGUST 29, 2000 RE: CASE NOS. CEN-T-99-03 AND CGS-T-99-04; QWEST’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF FINAL ORDER FOR CENTURY TEL OF IDAHO AND CENTURY TEL OF THE GEM STATE

On August 8, 2000, a Motion for Clarification was filed by Qwest Corporation, formerly U S WEST, in Case No. CEN-T-99-03 and CGS-T-99-04. A final Order was issued in that case on April 12, 2000, by which the Commission, among other things, approved EAS for Century Tel Gem State’s Richfield customers. Order No. 28340 requires Century Tel Gem State to “implement EAS for its Richfield customers to the Magic Valley EAS region, and implement EAS for its Grandview, Bruneau and Grasmere/Riddle customers to the Treasure Valley EAS region (excluding Payette, Weiser and New Plymouth).” Order No. 28340 pp. 17-18. Qwest filed its Motion for Clarification because it “is uncertain whether it is expected to undertake the implementation work that would be necessary to allow Qwest customers in the Magic Valley and Treasure Valley EAS regions to have two-way EAS with the CT Gem State exchanges addressed in the Order.” Qwest Motion to Clarify p. 2.
Qwest’s Motion identifies four issues for clarification. The first asks the Commission to clarify whether it intended the EAS it approved in Order No. 28340 to be two-way, i.e., whether the Commission intended for Qwest customers to have toll-free calling to the CT Gem State exchanges. Second, Qwest asks, if the Commission did intend to grant two-way EAS, to further clarify whether Qwest EAS costs and capital expenditures are to be recovered in the previously approved by the Commission for Qwest’s EAS costs. Third, because the implementation for the CT Gem State EAS is October 12, 2000, and Qwest has not begun the process to implement EAS, Qwest requests 21 days from the date of the clarifying Order to report to the Commission regarding the time it will require to implement EAS. Finally, Qwest’s motion points out that the need for clarification impacts CT Gem State because if two-way EAS is implemented, CT Gem State will lose the access charges paid by carriers to terminate calls originating in the Qwest EAS regions.
Although Order No. 28340 does not specifically order two-way EAS for CT Gem State’s customers, it is Staff’s understanding that the Commission intended the approved EAS to be two-way. Staff thus recommends that the Commission grant Qwest’s Motion for Clarification and issue a clarifying Order addressing the issues raised by Qwest’s Motion. Attached to this memorandum is a draft of a proposed Order to clarify Order No. 28340 issued in this case.
Commission Decision
Should the Motion of Qwest Corporation for clarification of Order No. 28340 be approved, and an Order issued clarifying that the EAS approved in Order No. 28340 is two-way and addressing the other concerns raised by Qwest in its Motion?

vld/M:CEN-T-99-03_CGS-T-99-04_ws

DECISION MEMORANDUM 2