980223.docx

MEMORANDUM
TO:LAWRENCE WASDEN, CHIEF OF STAFF
TERRY COFFIN, DIVISION CHIEF
BRETT DELANGE, DAG
FROM:DON HOWELL
DATE:FEBRUARY 23, 1998
SUBJECT:SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW EIGHTH CIRCUIT DECISION REGARDING THE FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996
Attached for your review is a NAAG synopsis of an Eighth Circuit decision (AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board) construing several Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations promulgated under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.  Brett asks whether TAG should be involved in this case and on what side.
As indicated in the attached NAAG memorandum, 21 state utility commissions and their national association (NARUC) are supporting the Eighth Circuit’s decision that the Telecommunications Act did not authorize the FCC to set intrastate rates for telecommunication services.  The state PUCs (including 6 of 14 U S WEST state commissions) support the Court’s conclusion that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority when it attempted to prescribe regulations dealing with intrastate rates.  The other major issue on appeal is whether competitors desiring to offer local telephone service may require incumbent telecommunication companies to “unbundled” and rebundle telephone services as requested by new competitors.
The Idaho PUC supports the states’ positions in this matter but decided not to become involved in the appeals.  Given the number of states currently represented and the alignment of Idaho’s interests with their interests, I do not see that Idaho needs to intervene in these consolidated cases.

Don Howell
bls/M-wasden.dh2