28607.doc

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-00-2
GNR-T-97-22

ORDER NO.  28607

IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION TO ESTABLISH THE IDAHO HIGH COST FUND AS REQUIRED BY IDAHO CODE § 62-610A THROUGH F.
)
)
)
)
)

On December 29, 2000, Verizon Northwest, Inc. (Verizon) filed a motion it titled Expedited Motion to Strike AT&T’s References to the Testimonies of Douglas Denney and David England Regarding Certain Cost Models and the Establishment of the Non-Rural Universal Service Fund. By its Motion, Verizon asks the Commission to “strike AT&T’s references to the testimonies of Douglas Denney and David England with regard to the use of cost models.” Motion to Strike, p. 4. Verizon asserts in its Motion that “these testimonies are contrary to this Commission’s Order to explore simple alternative methodologies for establishing a high-cost fund without the use of controversial cost models.” Motion to Strike, p. 1. Verizon further requests that the Commission act on its Motion by January 5, 2001, because additional testimony is due for prefiling by January 12, 2001. Verizon asserts in its Motion that it has complied with the requirements of Commission Rule of Procedure 256 to entitle it to expedited treatment on its Motion to Strike. The prefiled testimony at issue was filed or identified by AT&T for presentation at a hearing scheduled for January 29, 2001.
In a response filed January 4, 2001, AT&T contends Verizon’s Motion to Strike should be denied because the challenged testimony is relevant to the Commission’s “continuing . . . effort to adopt a forward-looking cost model as required by Idaho law.” AT&T Response, p. 4. AT&T does recognize, however, that “the Commission has expressed interest in considering alternatives to such models.” Id.
Verizon in its Motion correctly characterizes the Commission’s intent regarding the hearing scheduled to convene on January 29, 2001. The Commission previously specifically directed the parties to discuss and present proposals for “alternatives to adoption of the FCC cost model, or any of the currently advocated cost models, as a means of complying with the legislature’s directive to establish a high-cost universal service fund” pursuant to Idaho Code § 62-610(F). Order No. 28521, p. 1. The Commission also convened workshops to consider alternatives to adoption of a national cost model, and specifically scheduled the prefiling of testimony and the hearing in January to consider any proposed alternatives. As a result of the Commission’s direction to the parties, a Stipulation for the Non-Rural High Cost Fund was filed on December 12, 2000, setting forth an alternative for the high-cost fund to be considered at the January 29, 2001 hearing. The purpose of the hearing is “to consider the reasonableness of the settlement and whether acceptance of the settlement is just, fair, and reasonable, in the public interest, or otherwise in accordance with law or regulatory policy.” IPUC Rule of Procedure 274, IDAPA 31.01.01.274. Accordingly, it should be clear to all parties that the Commission will not entertain evidence at the hearing on January 29, 2001, regarding cost models or cost model inputs. Evidence outside the limited scope of the hearing will not be admitted on the record.
Verizon’s Motion to Strike is therefore granted to the extent that it asks the Commission to exclude from the record at the January 29, 2001 hearing, references and evidence pertaining to cost models and cost model inputs. To the extent the evidence referenced or prefiled by AT&T or any other party is beyond the scope of the hearing set for January 29, 2001, the evidence will not be admitted to the record.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Strike filed by Verizon is granted to the extent it asks the Commission to exclude from the record for the hearing on January 29, 2001, evidence beyond the limited scope of the hearing.
THIS IS AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may file a petition for review within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order with regard to any matter decided in this Order. A petition to review may request that the Commission: (1) rescind, clarify, alter, amend; (2) stay; or (3) finalize this Interlocutory Order. After any person has petitioned for review, any other person may file a cross-petition within seven (7) days. See Rules 321, 322, 323.04, 324, 325 (IDAPA 31.01.01.321 –325.)

DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
day of January 2001.

DENNIS S. HANSEN, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

PAUL KJELLANDER, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

vld/O:GNR-T-97-22_GNR-T-00-02_ws5

ORDER NO. 28607 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
January 8, 2001