2001516_ws.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
JEAN JEWELL
RON LAW
LOU ANN WESTERFIELD
DON HOWELL
LYNN ANDERSON
RANDY LOBB
JOE CUSICK
TONYA CLARK
BEVERLY BARKER
GENE FADNESS
WORKING FILE
FROM:
DATE:
MAY 16, 2001 RE: QWEST’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER APPROVING INSTALLATION OF FIBER ROUTE. CASE NO. GNR-T-00-40

On April 9, 2001, the Commission issued Order No. 28690 approving the installation of a fiber route between Riggins and Grangeville, Idaho. Funds for construction of the fiber route would come from proceeds of the sale of Qwest’s northern Idaho exchanges to Citizens Telecommunications Company. On April 27, 2001, Qwest filed a Motion for Clarification on three points mentioned in the order.
The first issue identified by Qwest for clarification is “competitively neutral access” to the fiber route once it is constructed. Comments filed in the case focused on the competitive ramifications of providing funds to Citizens for construction of the facilities. Accordingly, the Commission in Order No. 28690 stated that Citizens must allow access to the fiber route by competitor telecommunications providers on a non-discriminatory, competitively neutral basis. The Commission also required Citizens to “build in sufficient capacity, including a spare duct, in the fiber route to serve competitor companies.” Qwest asks the Commission to clarify this portion of the order to further define “non-discriminatory, competitively neutral access” and to provide guidance as to how Citizens must provide this access.
The second issue for clarification identified by Qwest relates to the relationship between the contributed funds for the fiber installation and Citizens’ independent commitment to improve facilities. Qwest notes that Citizens committed to spend $27 million in the north Idaho exchanges it is purchasing within three years following the acquisition. According to Qwest, “if Citizens were permitted to count the investment in the fiber route against the total committed investment, the customers in the acquired exchanges may see less investment than was originally expected while at the same time having the obligation to pay Idaho high-cost fund surcharges that would have otherwise been offset under the original Stipulation.” Qwest asks the Commission to clarify this point in the order.
The third point identified by Qwest for clarification is in regard to anticipated excess funds available from the sale proceeds beyond the cost of the proposed fiber route. Qwest notes that “the order provides that the entire $4.94 million be placed in the regulatory liability account where it will accrue interest until the final accounting entries are audited, even though the Commission anticipates the actual construction costs will be less than the contribution.” Although the order states that the Commission will determine the best use for any remaining funds, Qwest states that “the order is silent as to whether there will be a forum for interested parties to comment on any such proposed uses.” Qwest asks the Commission to clarify the order “to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed uses of any remaining portion or the $4.94 million contribution.”
Commission Decision
Should the order approving installation of the fiber route between Riggins and Grangeville be clarified as Qwest requests?

vld/M:GNRT0040_ws2

DECISION MEMORANDUM 2