VALVISN.docx

MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
FROM:DON HOWELL
DATE:APRIL 2, 1999
SUBJECT:VALLEY VISION 2001 LETTER DATED MARCH 29
Set out below are several points which are raised in the March 29, 1999 letter from Valley Vision 2001.  The second paragraph of the letter recites the community’s inability to land a 500-employee customer service center.  I am not sure of all the details so cannot credibly comment on the reasons the community could not “land” the employer.  I can say that this question has been raised before and the group has insinuated that there was not sufficient telecommunications infrastructure to support the needs of this prospective business.
1.  Deliberated in Closed Session Without Advance Notice.  The third paragraph of the letter asserts that the PUC deliberated in closed session.  As you are undoubtedly aware, the PUC is one of three state agencies granted an exception to the Idaho Open Meeting Law.  More specifically, Idaho Code § 67-2342(2) provides that deliberations of the Public Utilities Commission “in a fully submitted adjudicatory proceeding in which hearings, if any are required, have been completed, and in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of a party are to be determined[,] are not required by this act to take place in a meeting open to the public.  Such deliberations may, however, be made and/or conducted in a public meeting at the discretion of the agency.”  My recollection (being the final attorney on the case) is that the Commission did privately deliberate in this case.
A review of the Commission’s decision meeting agendas indicates that this matter was on the Commission’s agenda for February 8, 1999.  The case was listed as fully submitted, i.e., a matter that could be privately deliberated.  This Notice was posted “at the principal office of the public agency” (i.e., the bulletin board outside Bill’s office) and distributed to those entities requesting notice of the agenda.  Idaho Code § 67-2343(1).  I am unaware, although I believe, it is improbable that the City of Lewiston or Valley Vision was a normal recipient of the Commission’s decision meeting agenda.
2.  Decades-old Analog Switches and No Redundant Pathways.  It is my understanding that Valley Vision believes the lack of a digital switch in Lewiston contributed to the community’s inability in attracting the customer service center employer.  The switch that currently serves Lewiston also serves Clarkston, Washington.  The switch is an AT&T 1A-ESS—a computerized, electronic stored program control switch that is one generation removed from the current state-of-the-art digital switches.  This switch is capable of providing custom-calling features, frame relay, ISDN, etc.
In a November 4, 1998 letter to Valley Vision, U S WEST listed the infrastructure improvements it has initiated in the Lewiston area and noted at the bottom of the first page that the switch is currently to be replaced in 2003.  As is eluded in Valley Vision’s letter, I suspect that once the Company decided to place these eight exchanges in the sales package, there was no inclination to upgrade the switch.  This, of course, is all the more reason why the Commission should consider using a portion of the “premium” paid to U S WEST by the eventual purchaser that benefits ratepayers in some fashion.  This practice has occurred in several prior cases where portions of the premium were used to finance upgraded switch replacements.
3.  Time to Submit Letters and Petitions.  On December 1, 1998, the Commission issued its Notice of Application and Modified Procedure.(footnote: 1)  Our press release was issued December 4.  The Commission requested that interested persons submit written comments on the application no later than December 24, 1998.  The Commission received written comments from the Staff, U S WEST, and about 15 customers.  Order No. 27912 at 5.
The Commission also held a public hearing on January 19, 1999.(footnote: 2)  At the hearing six customers testified.  Nancy Keller testified on behalf of Valley Vision and requested that the Commission postpone its decision on the rebalancing “until we have a new owner of our LATA or to put it off until the date that the new company takes effect.”  Tr. at 20.  After she testified, Commissioner Nelson (chairing the hearing alone) said that “I might say that if anybody would like to comment further, why, the record would certainly be open for a couple more weeks and if you want to provide us a letter and expand more on your thoughts, why, we’d certainly welcome that.”  Tr. at 20.  The Commission’s final Order was issued February 12, 1999.  As I explained in my prior letter to Ms. Keller, her follow-up letter was received at the Commission the same day that the Commission issued its Order.  In other words, her letter was received at the Commission approximately 3-1/2 weeks after the January 19 hearing.(footnote: 3)
4.  Interested Party.  After reviewing the case file in this matter, I can find no indication  that Valley Vision requested to be “recognized as an interested party.”  It is our practice to serve a copy of the final Order on anyone that has submitted comments in the case.  All persons who submitted written comments in response to the Notice of Modified Procedure were added to the service list and did receive copies of the final Order.  It is also our practice that members of the public who testify at our hearings be included as “interested persons” on our service list.  However, in this case, I cannot confirm that that was actually accomplished.  I suspect they were not sent copies of the Order because the six people who testified (including Nancy Keller) are not listed as interested persons on the service list.
Nevertheless, William Stewart, Executive Director of Valley Vision, did receive a facsimile of the Commission’s final Order on February 19, 1999.  Receiving the Order on this date would still have allowed him approximately two weeks to file a Petition for Reconsideration.  The last paragraph in the Order states that any person may petition for reconsideration within 21 days of the service date of the Order.  No Petition was received.
5.  The table below compares local residential rate as suggested in the third paragraph of the letter.
LOCAL RESIDENTIAL RATES
Company
Rate
USW-South
USW-North
GTE Northwest
Small Independents
Citizens Telecom
Lewiston/Lapwai
6 others
$17.33/mo
$16.00/mo
$14.50/mo
$10.50-19.25/mo
$24.10/mo
17.50/mo
For your review, I have also attached U S WEST’s letter to Nancy Keller dated November 4, 1998; the final Order No. 27912; and my previous letter to Valley Vision.
What next?

Don Howell
bls/M:valvisn.dh
FOOTNOTES
1:
In reviewing the case file, it appears that the Notice of Application and Notice of Modified Procedure (combined in Order No. 27812) may not have been served upon newspapers, municipalities, and chambers of commerce in the eight exchanges.  Our Procedural Rule 202 requires that Notices of Modified Procedure be served upon these organizations in addition to other interested persons.  IDAPA 31.01.01.202.
2:
A press release for the public hearing was issued January 7, 1999.
3:
As is the practice, the Commission desired to complete this case before you assumed your position.  In other words, those cases that can be completed prior to the change in sitting Commissioners are finished so that the new Commissioner can begin with a clean slate and not be saddled with unfamiliar cases/records.