Response to USW Motion to Adjust Schedule.doc

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, ID 83720-0074
Tele: (208) 334-
Idaho Bar No. 3283
FAX: [phone]

Street Address for Express Mail:

472 W Washington
Boise, ID 83702-5983

Attorney for the Idaho Public Utilities Commission

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE COST MODEL USING FORWARD-LOOKING ECONOMIC COSTS FOR CALCULATING THE COSTS OF BASIC TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES IN IDAHO
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NOS. GNR-T-97-22
GNR-T-00-2

STAFF RESPONSE TO QWEST’S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION TO ESTABLISH THE IDAHO HIGH COST FUND AS REQUIRED BY IDAHO CODE § 62-610A THROUGH F.
)
)
)
)
)

The Commission Staff, by its attorney of record, files this response to Qwest’s Expedited Motion for Modification of Procedural Schedule filed by facsimile on January 8, 2001. Qwest also filed a Notice of Withdrawal from Stipulation and Partial Withdrawal of Testimony. Qwest stated it was withdrawing from the Stipulation because “it realized that it might not have reached a meeting of minds with Staff regarding a critical issue: specific IHCF per-line support for wire centers served by Qwest and Verizon.” Motion p. 2. The misunderstanding identified by Qwest occurs in regard to Attachment A to the Stipulation. Qwest stated its “understanding that page 1 of Attachment A to the Stipulation reflected the parties’ agreement to specific per-line funding levels for each of the five [wire center] ‘levels’ identified by Attachment A.” Motion p. 2. Qwest identified “a complete disconnection between Qwest’s understanding of the Stipulation and the testimony of Dr. Johnson,” an outside consultant retained by the Commission. Motion p. 3. After learning that Staff was satisfied its testimony accurately supports the Stipulation, Qwest filed its Notice of Withdrawal from the Stipulation and Expedited Motion for Modification of Procedural Schedule.
By its Motion, Qwest requests that the Commission vacate the current procedural schedule and allow Qwest an additional 30 days “to attempt either to meet a mutually acceptable agreement with Staff or offer another independent alternative for the parties’ consideration.” Motion p. 4. Qwest points out that rebuttal testimony is due January 12, 2001, and that if it is required to proceed with the filing of testimony this week, Qwest would be forced to oppose the Stipulation and offer a new position. Qwest states that this would be unfair to the other parties, since “no party would favor being unable to respond to a position because it was offered in the rebuttal round.” Motion p. 4. Qwest also points out that “there does appear to be consensus among those affected by a non-rural high cost fund but there is no immediate need to implement a surcharge and begin disbursements from the fund.” Motion p. 5. Qwest therefore asserts that there would be no immediate harm resulting from the delay it requests by its Motion.
Staff by responding to Qwest’s Motion does not imply that a party to a stipulation may not withdraw from the stipulation upon discovering a fundamental misunderstanding regarding a significant element of the stipulation. Staff will accept that Qwest’s misunderstanding is in good faith. However, Staff does not believe the “per-line support for wire centers served by Qwest and Verizon” is a critical component of the Stipualtion. If it were, the Stipulation would not have provided for a range of between $2 million and $6 million for the fund, nor would have the question of the number of lines to support per address remain open.
That does not mean Qwest is wrong regarding its own misunderstanding of the Stipulation. It is worth mentioning only to point out that the Commission can adopt the Stipulation, were it to become so inclined, without establishing the per-line level of support. In fact, the Stipulation states that an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) must make formal application to the Commission to receive support payments from the fund. Stipulation ¶ 4. When “at some point in the future…an ETC makes a formal request for support from the fund, the Commission can determine the appropriate surcharge.” Stipulation ¶ 9. It might be appropriate and logical to establish the per-line support level at the same time the surcharge is determined as part of the carrier’s specific request for support from the fund. In other words, the level of per-line support may not be critical to the Stipulation. Although the per-line support level is undoubtedly significant to Qwest, that issue can be determined when it makes application for support from the fund.
Despite the argument stated above, Staff does not oppose Qwest’s Motion to Vacate the current procedural schedule. It seems nearly impossible that the Commission could rule on Qwest’s Motion, particularly where it has requested an oral argument, in time for the parties to respond and file rebuttal testimony by January 12, 2001. In particular, if Qwest’s rebuttal testimony is not truly rebuttal and presents a new proposal, the remaining parties will need additional time to review the proposal and prepare responsive testimony.
RESPECTIVELY submitted this day of January 2001.

Deputy Attorney General

vld/N: GNR-T-97-22_GNR-T-00-2_mwdraw_ws

STAFF RESPONSE TO QWEST’S MOTION FOR
MODIFICATION OF PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE 3