20000317O'Leary Letter.doc

March 17, 2000

Molly O’Leary
Richardson & O’Leary
PO Box 1849
Eagle, ID 83616

Re: Case No. USW-T-99-25/CTC-T-99-2; Preparation of Settlement and Stipulation Agreement

Dear Molly:

Your letter to me dated March 7, 2000, purported to summarize a conversation we had that day along with Susan Lamb, Director of Carrier Relations of Avista Communications. Your letter contained several misstatements and although the misstatements may be inadvertent, it is important to correct them to prevent any misunderstanding.

First, you noted that Avista was advised that U S WEST and Citizens had approached the Public Utilities Commission Staff to consider possible settlements, and then your letter states that “Avista was not invited nor allowed to participate in those discussions. Further, only the final draft of the proposed settlement and/or stipulation agreements were provided to Avista for its review and comment.” That is in error. You were informed some weeks in advance of the preparation of any draft stipulation that the parties intended to discuss possible settlement with Staff. Approximately February 22 or 23, I informed you that I expected to see proposed drafts from each company during that week, which I would provide to you. On Tuesday, February 29, 2000, I had draft stipulations in hand that I provided to you on that day by facsimile. I also informed you that Staff intended to make a decision regarding the proposed settlements by the end of that week, which was Friday, March 3, 2000. Nonetheless, I did not hear from you regarding the stipulations until Tuesday, March 7, 2000, the date on which you discovered the stipulations faxed to you seven days earlier. I also made clear in my earlier discussions with you that, although I welcomed your input regarding the proposed stipulations, Staff would not include in the stipulations the interconnection issues identified by Avista. In short, Staff believes the notice and opportunity to participate provided to Avista complies with the Commission’s Rule of Procedure 272. Unfortunately, the period of time when your input would have been most useful was the time in which the proposed settlements were undiscovered in your office.

You next discuss language in paragraph No. 12 of the Staff and U S WEST stipulation wherein Staff stipulates that it will file testimony in support of the Joint Application. Your letter states: “If the [interconnection] issues are not satisfactorily resolved by the time the hearing is held, Staff will formally raise the issues in the hearing and take the position that the Commission should condition its approval of the Joint Application on U S WEST’s satisfactory resolution of the Lewiston-Sherwood exchange issues.” On the contrary, I specifically informed you that in Staff’s view the interconnection issues raised by Avista did not rise to the level of a condition precedent to approval of the Joint Application. In fact, I informed Avista from the very beginning that Staff would do what it could to assist resolution of the interconnection issues, even though the interconnection issues arguably are irrelevant to this proceeding. Staff has done what it can to encourage U S WEST to work with Avista to resolve any interconnection issues. I understand those efforts have been successful.

Regarding existing interconnection agreements, your correspondence addressed whether “CTC Idaho will be required to continue honoring the terms and conditions of any now existing interconnection agreements with U S WEST until such time as a new agreement is negotiated by the parties, regardless of the date such existing agreements are set to expire.” During our conversation I stated that Staff expects Citizens to honor existing interconnection agreements and in fact Citizens has made a commitment to do so. Thus, if the terms of an existing interconnection agreement provide for some continuing effectiveness during a negotiation period, Citizens would be bound to honor those terms. However, if an interconnection agreement contains no such provision, Citizens would have no obligation beyond the terms of the agreement. That is why I recommended that Avista consider asking U S WEST for an extension of its interconnection agreement or confirm now with Citizens that Citizens will extend the interconnection agreement during a negotiation period. The Staff by its stipulation with Citizens certainly cannot rewrite or extend the terms of existing interconnection agreements beyond what is contained in the agreements themselves.

I trust this correspondence will clear up any misunderstanding regarding our conversation. As I indicated to you and Ms. Lamb, the Commission Staff will continue to assist Avista where appropriate. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely yours,

Weldon B. Stutzman
Deputy Attorney General

Cc: Mary Hobson
Woody Richards
Susan Lamb
Lance Tade
Molly O’Leary
03/31/03
Page 2

2
Vld/L:O’Leary_ws