HomeMy WebLinkAbout19980416Decision Memo.doc DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSIONER NELSON
COMMISSIONER SMITH
MYRNA WALTERS
TONYA CLARK
DON HOWELL
STEPHANIE MILLER
DAVE SCHUNKE
WAYNE HART
CAROLEE HALL
JOE CUSICK
MADONNA FAUNCE
DAVID SCOTT
WORKING FILE
FROM: BRAD PURDY
DATE: APRIL 16, 1998
RE: CASE NO. FIL-T-97-1
APPLICATION OF FILER MUTUAL TELEPHONE COMPANY FOR DISBURSEMENTS FROM THE IDAHO UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND
On December 31, 1997, Filer Mutual Telephone Company (Filer Mutual; Company) filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Commissions final Order No. 27249 issued in this case on December 12, 1997 resolving Filer Mutuals Application for disbursements from the Idaho Universal Service Fund.
In its Petition, Filer Mutual argues that the Commissions decision to allow the Company an overall return of 10% but limited to 60% of Filer Mutuals current rate base is arbitrary and capricious. Filer Mutuals second point of contention involves the Companys estimation of its net loss in intrastate access charge revenue attributable to the implementation of EAS. Although the Commission accepted Filer Mutuals estimated annual loss, the Company notes that since it implemented EAS in September 1997, it now has a substantial amount of actual lost access charge data rather than the estimates and projections presented at hearing which, Filer Mutual contends, are too low.
On January 27, 1998, the Commission issued Order No. 27314 granting Filer Mutuals Petition for Reconsideration on its first point of contention; that is, whether the Commission erred in limiting Filer Mutuals return to 60% of the Companys current rate base in calculating its USF entitlement. The Commissions Order denied Filer Mutuals second point of contention regarding the estimate of lost access charge revenues. The Commission reasoned that there is insufficient actual data to justify reevaluating these lost revenues. Moreover, the Commission noted that this is exacerbated by the fact that the actual data available is based on the time period immediately following the implementation of EAS and near or during the holiday season; both factors which are likely to result in an increased call volume.
On April 3, 1998, Filer Mutual submitted comments stating that although it believes the Commissions Order was incorrectly decided on the law and the evidence presented in this preceding, nonetheless, given the current Idaho Universal Service Fund threshold which has been recognized by the Commission in prior cases, it is apparent that those portions of Commission Order No. 27249, which Filer has objected to through its Petition for Reconsideration have been entirely mooted. Comments at p. 2. Filer concludes that on that ground, it would be appropriate for the Commission to rescind and withdraw those portions of Order No. 27249 to which Filer requested consideration. Id. Filer believes that the Commission should simply rule that such issues, and the basis for any ruling thereon, have become moot and need not be decided now.
Idaho Code 61-626 requires that the Commission issue a final order on Filer Mutuals Petition for Reconsideration no later than May 1, 1998. Staff believes that it would not be appropriate to simply withdraw those portions of the final order that Filer Mutual finds objectionable on the basis of mootness, as the Company suggests. A final order is necessary so long as an application is pending because of finality, appealability and administrative concerns. Staff recommends, therefore, that the Commission issue the attached Order affirming Final Order No. 27249 but recogniziing that the issue is now moot and specifically stating that Filer Mutual is not prejudiced from its right to dispute its entitlement to USF funding in the future.
Commission Decision
Does the Commission wish to issue such an Order?
Brad Purdy
bls/M:filt971.bp3
DECISION MEMORANDUM 1